High Court Karnataka High Court

Girish C V vs United Inida Insurance Co Ltd on 23 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Girish C V vs United Inida Insurance Co Ltd on 23 October, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
UNTHEIHC%1COURT(fi?KARNATAKAAJW&MNGALCRE

DATED THIS THE 2380 DAY OF OCTOBER, _,2vQ'--iQ . H

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE B.S}5{EE1\EIVA..SE«'C§V§:3WVI )'A'«' 

M.F.A. No.3298 QE 2068   1 " 
BETWEEN: R V.

GIRISH C V, ' A 

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,   T 1

S/O K. VENKATESH GOWDA,-1 . V 
NO.126, Tm MAIN, .'?.""3? CRO'SS,ff   

NAGENDRA BLiDC K; L  " 
BSK 3RD     A  
BANGALORE¥'55'Q_V05E5}'   ...APPELLANT

[BY SR1  ADV. ,1
AND:   ' ' V
:_'[j;v'UNI'1-'E13iNDIA1NVSU'SCE co. LTD.,
BRANCH OFF1CE;~,NO.2, 181' FLOOR,

HOSU'R}VLA1N_ARGALf.., MADIVALA.
BANGALORE  569" 068,

' PEP. B''{44_'ITST~MAjl.'é'AGER.

.  SR1 S SHABBER AHMED,
A   M  HUSSAIN,
  °-_"N.O;731/2';";BRAHMIN STREET,
 ATTIEELE, ANEKAL TALUK,
z'BANG:ALoRE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS

 {BY SR1 U ABDUL KHADER, ADV., FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

***

I3?’

2

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) ONE MV
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD_4.._I)AT._ED
1.1.2008 PASSED IN MVC NO.6293/2006 ON THE; OF

THE XIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
MEMBER, MACT, METROPOLITIAN AREA, BANGALORE,
{SCCH. No.15), PARTLY ALLOWINGTHE C.LAIM’_”P1LT1TION”‘» *

FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENI:L4\N:CE}V1TE}$I”f”VVOVF
COMPENSATION. A

THIS APPEAL COMING ONVEQR A2D.MiSS1’Q’N~;._TH1S3Dh ‘1~’.i’

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLi;UVVING:¢_ I
This appeaif. enhancement of
Compensation V

2. isviiitatimitted and with the
Consent of iearneti’.tap.pearing for the parties, it is
taken upjfor
the of Convenience, the parties are

referred referred to in the Claim petition before

Vtlae Trih’una,1_v.’ ‘ A

4. ” brief facts of the Case:

Ont’.-‘27.5.2006 when the Claimant was riding I-Iero

motorcycle near Huskur gate a lorry bearing No.KA»~

itt”–“‘O’1V§1574 Came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner

%.

and dashed against his motorcycle. In the result, he fell

down and sustained injuries. Hence he filed a claimupletitgion

before MACT, Bangalore, seeking compensation: _

66,00,000/– (Rupees Six Lakhs only). The tribunal: ‘ajward¢ae«,.

a sum of 31,81,000/- [Rupees

Thousand only) with interest at (5%—..p.a.ll’

5. As there is no dispu_te”‘-regarding’occuyrrence of

accident, negligeiiceiiand if; insurer of the
offending Vehicle,” lo”r1iy”‘ ” that arises for my
consideration in ., ‘ “l
“wh.eth.er”t.he.:c”oni:pensation awarded by the
Trihurial is jtistandnreasonabie or does it call for
…..

ESV.«:_ the learned counsel appearing for

Vl’~~the parties nerusing the judgment and award of the

* }’r_1’__bunal, I” of the View that the compensation awarded by

ti’ze.”Tribi.ii’1aI is not just and reasonable, it is on the lower

..”i’herefore it is required to be enhanced.

7. The claimant has sustained the following injuries:–

35

4

concussive head injury, lefort, H fracture of mid face
with mid patella fit right mandibuler parasymphysis fracture,

mesoephanvidal complex fracture, CLW on nose ~. V.

The injuries sustained by him “are evident’: .fr’orVri, the ”

wound certificate EX.P–2, discharge surr:maries_f

numbers), case sheet Ex.P–10.f._v’sean report and-if

supported by oral evidence of th.e…Vc1’airr;ant afr1d..Ado.ctor, who

were examined as PWs–i and 2 r€sp€:ctiV.e1y. Medical records

show that hospital on 27.5.2006
and ..internal fixation to reduce the
fracture 1efort””{ei_’_’ mandibuler on 29.5.2006.
ifie t Again he admitted to

Ho.sri1at* 56.2006 and discharged on 8.6.2006.

admitted to hospital on 11.9.2006 and

.i8.9.2006. PW.2, an Orthopedic Surgeon has

‘fdfeposed”regarding nature of fracture, line of treatment and

0’ V-Viy”ic.onset;uent disability sustained by the claimant. He has

A.stuated that claimant has suffered disability of 12% to whole

“body.

5

8. Considering the nature of injuries, –

(Rupees Forty Thousand only] awarded by

towards ‘pain and suffering’, is on the»Iower”sid:evandflit is”

deserved to be enhanced by another’-?.

Thousand only] and I award_v”‘?.,50,”O0ij/’e_

Thousand only) under this head.


9. As  Lakh Eleven
Thousand oniy]     towards

hospitalisation Tegcfienses is based on the
medical and there is no scope

for enh anceinent tunder”

10. T he wasbtreated as inpatient for a period
‘.17 ‘days in Hosmatvfliiospitai on three speils. Considering

thesarn1eV,V«?;§3;QQt).A}’-+:’.:{Rupees Five Thousand only] awarded by

Vthe Tribunal fttowards ‘incidental expenses’ such as

‘eony’eyance,’V-‘nourishment and attendant charges is on the

and it is deserved to be enhanced by another

— [Rupees Ten Thousand only), I award ‘€15,000/–

Fifteen Thousand only} under this head.

6

11. T he claimant is aged 21 years studying in

Engineering (Electronics) in a college at Bangalore

couid not attend 4″‘ sem examination,_ Ther’e’fo*r–e_~ ahisum _.of

€25,000/– (Rupees Twenty Five Thousa’_nd:Von1v)’~

towards loss of inconvenience caused to his c.ducVation.~career. = . L’

12. Claimant is a student in vear B.E.,
and therefore awarding compensation” the head of loss
of income during laid loss of future
income does _ has to bare with the
disability 1§2,%-the doctor to whole body and

certain amouritofevdiiscomfortw and unhappiness in’ his future

life: Conside1’ing a sum of 140,000 / ~ [Rupees Forty

Thousa11.d awarded towards loss of amenities.

in the evidence that he was operated

with inter:1ai.,fi§§ation of implants’ are required to be removed

therefore a sum of $10,000/m [Rupees Ten Thousand

V’ awarded towards future medical expenses.

14. Thus, the claimant is entitled for the foliowing

it ~- compensation:–

a) Pain and sufferings — ?’. 50,000/an 2

13) Medical expenses — ?.1,1 1,000/”-.

c] Incidental expenses — ?. 15,0QQ”/”–‘–« _

d) Inconvenience caused to .

education career « 2′. 25,800′,/–“‘i.. =

e] Loss of amenities — ‘?:’;« 4Q,0,00/’Q V in

f] Future medical expenses — 3?; .. –lO;*Q_OO :;_’

TOTAL 1

15. Accordingly, :4._allowed in part. The

judgment and award passed is modified to

the extent stated is entitled to a
total compensatio1′:i.:”ot”.: Two Lakhs Fifty-
one Thousand ‘§’.1,81.000/- [Rupees One
Lakh Eightyeoiie awarded by the Tribunal

at 6%”‘ip,__a_,y.»on the enhanced compensation of

?.’7o*.{1oo/y- -v[_Ru’pee’s._SeVenty Thousand only) from the date of

clairnpetition date of realisation.

16.2 ..”fh:e.VI4lI1surance Company is directed to deposit the

5_”‘=e4nhlanced.compensation amount together with interest within

V’ months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

‘ml at .ju§lgment.

Q/.

8

17′. Out of the enhanced compensation, 75%1jof.the

amount with proportionate interest is ordered to_;3:)’e«’

in fixed deposit in the name of claimant in ..

Bank/Scheduled Bank/Post Office for

Remaining amount with proportionate “interest.”is’,_o1f§1e1i-ed to. V

be released in favour of the clairne-fitjtnniedtoetelyyiafter the

deposit. , _ ._ 3

18. No order as to costs, ”

YKL/