High Court Karnataka High Court

H Shivakumar vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 9 June, 2011

Karnataka High Court
H Shivakumar vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 9 June, 2011
Author: K.L.Manjunath And H.S.Kempanna


IN THE mam COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

DATED THIS THE <::9'm my GP' 2,<:.:j7 E. A'

PRESENfi'""' M A _
THE HONBLE MR. JUs'riCE 'E}.NA*i'-13$
THE HONBLE Ix/IR.JUS:'I'I_C:jL?.VH.S;KE:MPANNA
M.E.A;Ef0,5'iE8Eflé'GEoE (My1

BETWEEN .

H.sHIvAEL:MAR:’EE’E’E .

S/O HUCIi{IRA’PP}'{“~.._b V.

AGED ABOUT~?.<3.YEA}£:S,"Y ~ '
R/A NO;"I4»1A."j2ND ":*\§2.1z:11\':–,.E

3RD CROSS, KzEM.ALANAGAEz\,.'
BANGALORE E' " " APPELLANT

(BY sRI.éH.E:EA1j -V s:HA.é*rR1 8: KS. BHAT –~ ADVS.)

' NBZXZX/V'EN:'DELii.ASSURANCE3 CO. LTD,

R;'O..»V2'5,»' UNITY BUILDING ANNEX,

' '– A 'MISSIGN EOAD,

»..EAN.GALjQRE » 560 0227.

Ex; ITS MANAG ER

., 2; «MAQKHADEE,

– __S{–,’«’O M.A.MAJEE3D,
R/A NOB/101, MUSAPET,
MAHABUBNAGARA,
ANDHRAPRADESH. RESPONDEN”§’:E3

{BY SRI.D’S.SRIDHAR – ADV. FOR R~L
NOTICE TO R-2 DISPENSED ‘WITH VXO D,é’:TED:26g 1 E E09 )

E’v’EF}% FELEJD U55 173(1) OF MY ACT AGAENST T§~lE
QUE/}GMEl\§T AEXTB AEREARD D; TEZD:€%5/*3}/288$ PASSES EN
M’3f€ ?§O,1Z§54}g’2O0:’§ SN THE FILE 8? ZFEEEE E47″ ABEL.

g \
X C

JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, CQURT OF SMALL
‘Bx/EETROPOLIT./3d\E AREA, BANGALORE {SCCH~£O.};. PARTLY

ALLOWING THE {ZLAEM PETETEON FOR COMPE}N§3A7§ICN

AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT or C:QMPEN.$fz;T1Q’N;vrj”‘ 1 ~

THIS APPEAL COMING ON E*Q.R_F:Ngxi;”Hriz§RiI~s::-Tr::S”»

DAY, MANJUNATH J., DELIvE:R:§:D r<'QL;Q.wt.NQ:;;' ;
Heard the counsel for '

2. The aphgtieialthvvheing not
satisfied with the by the MACT,
Bangalore 5: in MVC

No.1354/.2VOQ:4f;_’V.v.ht” r

5.30 a.m. the claimant

was sleeping in thevfiutoriekshaw near Shivananda

‘_ Cij: __?I?5:ir1ga»1t)’I’e.t.._.._.At that point of time, a lorry bearing

‘ dashed against the autorickshaw in

izzhieh ‘j_eté.1mant was sleeping. As a result Qt which,

he etxettzgihed the following injuries :~

i} Left eye lid abrasierr

ii} Fracture anterior rnaciiai & leteral Wail of
magzifiary sinus

iii) Fracture inferior, medial and left etzperier wail of
Qrbit

iv) Fraeture {)f8.f1’I.E:Y§0I’ cranial {C882},
5%»

V) Fracture of nasal ‘Genes and frental process if
maxilla H

vi) Fracture of left zygomatie arch”

4. To Show that he sustained ” ihjurie_é’–jt1eV”relied

upan the evidence of

Considering the nature Of”i’gi.1’1_§tiri€SV”~S1iS’iaiIlt:d by the

claimant the suhilefdv%90,000/–
under the head 368,000/–

towards * v….:?;5,O0O/~ towards
eonveyangee, it attendant eharges,
%’9,0C.l(5 Df_’Hdir1Vc0me during treatment
of amenities in life. Thus,

in all it a\xxrard_edl’ at gm of 32,03,000/~ with interest at

«E555/”5 the date of the petition till realisation.

s:!9_”tl”s;fied with the Compensation awarded by

the trihtiizal, the present appeal is filed.

.3′ We have heard the learned Ceunsel for the

gjarties. T he main eontehtioris Of the appellants are :–

The Tribunal did net eensider the income of the

Claimant whe was a paitnter £’)rOf€SS§Qf1i The Tribunal

did not awarci compensation under the head future less

of income. Therefore, he requests this “euu:r–:Kte

recurrsider the entire evidence and ‘h the

<:0rnper1satiorL

6. Per contra, the 1e.arned_z eourrsei

Insurance Company eonterzds.thatfherCorripensation

awarded by the Tri’r§u.r1a1 .”it’se}.f;is–».’s’en thehigher side.
Therefore, he requests this 1302 the appeal.

entitleei’ to g1a::fi’~é:gr§”p.;§r;«s;1tion under the head future

loss; 0}’ _ir1Ce1r:e,”‘since the injuries caused to his nasal

proeess of maxilla and left zygornatie arch

:3″

~;

due tu~W>h§eh’vthere is disfigurement Qéihis face and an

aeé’eur3,_t hofthe disfigurement, there Carma: be any loss

, efar__ihe{i«me or reduction in his earning capacity.

“?herefor*e, the first point has to be negatived.

8. However, having regard to the Compensation
awarded by the Trihunah it is rzotieed that it did net

/,

consider the deformi’r.y caused to the ctiaimaet on

account of the injuries who was aged 26 yeerre :1 :réivr.t};at

he was unmarried. On account of the __’me’;v~.§ve “J.I:’€

inclined to award €25,000/~ asferiehaneed e<errip.e3:s'ai:i0i':r..

Accordingly, this appeal, is ié::11:<')'w.ed

appellant is entitled re 'er1ihaneed"._eGn§per;;serrion of'

€25,000/– with intevrieesg at_«'AV.6'%VA trie eiate of the
petition till realisatiore L 9
On ef itiie increase in the

e0n1pensé;tVi0–r_1';;.V_we" 'd._ire(;r ih'e 1"r'£buna1 to release the

_____ ,,

5f'.§
23:5,; "

3

m