Ganpathi @ Ganesh vs Prakash R Sajjan on 26 February, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 26"' {DAY OF FEBRUARY,  A.

BEFORE

THE HOWBLEL 1\e:R.JUS'1'I<:f-mi'z9Ah:AN::§A'V3v   

M.F'.A.N(}. 7391 'T
BETWEEN; ' I A

GANPATHI @ GANESH, 
s/0 RAJKUMAR,   5
AGED ABOUTQYEARS,  ~  ' _  .
MINOR, OCC:S'I'UDEN"I', -- _  '

UNDERZTHE _Gij;%§2{_)IAN:'_~31~Ii!?? OF';
HIS FATH_ER4RAJ_KLiVMAR,  " __
S/O sHAN;s;_ER RAG,  _   "
AGED 3'? YEARS, -_ A V

000; LABOUR,  " "

 - R/A',F'i«iALHALLi,         « &

'T"ALU"§2s.2~.-2«:)o';'..¢ passed in MVC
No.166/2005 on the file bf.ihe'Ad€1ii'ioi1:a1.Ci'1i1 Judge (3.13) 8:.
MAC!'-HI, Bidar, partly   the " petition for
compensation and seeking :::3i:1ane::i11cn.t'. oftzampcnsation.

This éappcai :»:i'f§§i'v}'1ea2§ing this day, the Court
made: the following: . '  T'   

*_afifi¢MEH?

   ._fi1ed by the appeiia.1:rE:--claimant, under

secxfinfi-.T-;'?3g:i'j~v--.gf V§:§w~*Act, 1988 chalkngiug the inadequate

vcompcrisaitiogg'  by the Addl, CW1}. Judge (Sr.Dn) and

" in, may in MVC 510.166/2005 dated 23.2.2002?

A'  That main gonads urgeei by the appcilant is that

V'  '   éfipefiant is a minor boy aged 7 years (3111 student at the

  '~time of the accident sustainsd gnjuries in an accident that

A"



occurzrtzd on 11.2.2005. According to the 

1 1.2.2005, the minor appellant left the house   '

and he was pmceeding by walk 1;qH,V1:;.1s s¢1§¢5¢1li1;;n""133;iar:_Vl'l'

Chidri Road, Whiki' he was pmclzcedjrxgiv  

K}1asi2:apur school cross, a jé¢p._Vbea21:'i.n$ No.lKA§w32»,!A -£306 r l'

belonfing to the mspondent    the
postal department camé:   dashed against
him. Consequently he  ':'to the skull,
ixnmcdiately   Bidar, where
first    in him, than mferrcd to the
higher nfiédtiéal   l'i'é§c;§;x1ing1y, the parents of the

appellant _$}:uifated   at private nursizlg home, since the

 AV lfiifttiviuéal Véxfitrztgses is more expensive to provide him

 bvfixéetlpfivate nursing heme, therefare, shiftcd to

0sma;f1iyg.~ flwféfiéfal Hospital in an ambulance where: he was

  undergone i::mai:m.cnt for the  of the

   betwttten 21.2.2305 :0 15.2.2095. Later they have

V'  claim gfltition. After consiécténg the evidenceg the claim

   has awarded compensation of Rs.48,5()O/--.

V

. K '/

/'r~ -'



However, there is a mistake in the total of $.16,' " V.

amount, the tribunal while totaiing the 

awarded by it under difihrent  §¢1'ongly .; 

total compensation amount as f» 

Rs.38,500/-. The appellants hai:":e:.V.€;ame 'éiiafieal
seeking enhancement {if x awaait:it":d~" on the
various heads.

3.    the parties and

 'fh{=} 3:1 "  ' ~ . 

4. '«   is   counsel for appeflant that

V the £;;;;}pe}1ant  Ifiinér boy suflemd a fiactuxe of skull,

  ¥;3ut T}-ibunal  awarded only a sum 01" Rs.18,00()[--

:  pain and sufieztings. Further they have

_  spém; Rs§ .25.,nGflT(}/-- towards medical expenses, but a meam

 R$.5,{}0O]-- has been awarded towards medical

 jrzxpanfses. Amount spent inwards conveyance has not been

   _;:<i»§c:si£1ered st) .3130 loss of amanitics awarded at the rate of

 Rs.10,{}{}€}/~ is 1:06 1012?. It is argued that a§peI};::1.m; has to



sufier through out his life with pain. He 

summaxy to prove the nature of the ttxeament    

while undergoing treatment. Court'bele'W has 

the said fact in awaxtiixag eompensafien under. the 2

heads. C.'I'.Scan of the brain"   h..a'veA on." V

12.2.2005. There is 11¢' "p§1.thoi0_éit-

1' 




'§?'. The Respondent No.2»Insurance  is