EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN§;m.Lg§I§§: "
DATED THIS THE gem DAY OF Ju1%.,!Y ;?a.{3§.J%ij: T 7' J
PRESEN'};';
THE HQWBLE MR.,}"LfS'§'I§;§; 'N.K.PAfI5{LV" ' %
AN:q.._'*~»
THE HQNELE :"§e1R.gJ¥J'S'Pf'{;;'.V'H,BILiA'PPA:
;:921_/2lf}(}:2.__{1\vdV}
K. G. S-Iareya, V 135;'. 0.._K;+G;J_é.gada3sh,
Aged about 8 minor
Represented thr<m'gh»~her natural guardian
Father K.G.~J;;tgadessh AS"/0 Goneappa,
Agacl abaut 4}; §.ziea.rs,v Rice Merchant,
Mafi;1Lasid::1eshwai*a'& £30., Chowkipet,
. __ .. APPELLANT
«;$%§i,LsMks:¥::. mjppin, Adv.,)
~. 1.' S/0 Rama Ran,
' €)wz'ier--cum--Rider 01" Meter Cycle bearing
'Reg. N6.AP-{)9/AG 1277,
39% Cross, Vi<:1ya:r1agar'Last
3213 Step, Davanagere.
1/
2. The Manager,
Nationa} Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Chigateri Mercantiie Building,
P.B.N0.'?4, Chamarajpet,
Davanagare.
(By Sri. Vishwarzath S.Shetta1' £<§:~.Ré)
This MFA filed u.[S 1?3'(13j*er Ev§._V Act against the
Judgment and awaVr:1':%"dat:ed;V- v3G-...(_}9."2004 passed in
MVC No.22?'/03 913. the .fi1:=:f 0f"thc.QIT'-A_d;di._, Civi} Judge
(Sr. D11) :35 III AMACT,vV--Dai:a:1gere',"paf€;1y'allowing the
claim peti1;i<3~.n_ 'afar; coi§1pe1*1~%ti($I}* and seeking
enhanccmgm:o}?'céc;»I13§::IisatiQ1'}g'--V '
""" hearing this day,
H. BELAPPA? 9, __£:I:3c following: -
% 7 $dfiéMENT
This is" directed against the judgment
30--9~2()O4, passeci by the I Add}.
ci»;},;;.Ta¢;:%ge {$2-*;'Dn.) &IIIAdd1. MAST, Davanagere, in
ZiIIV~':"3.E'é.i§:;22';?/2003.
" By the impugxed judwent and award, the
has garxted compensatian of Rs.58,300/-
z/
with irltereet at 6% per armum free": the
petitien til} the date of realisation.
3. Aggrieved by that, the" f§'1eej.,,' n
this appea}, seeking enhaneemema. V ' A
4. In brief, the ?fm:;' :igi2e;2<3o3
at about 4 13.111, av-13en the A' eoming
home, after attendingg' Main Cross,
Taralahalu i§aYef:geIfi;.%' respondent
drove? fiietefifiegfiehicie No.AP–09/AG-1277,
in 3 manner and came from
behind the appellant. As a result
r ., N.-‘:e_j sustained injuries. The
compensation of Rs.5,00,00()/-.
‘I’Ai*3.e% has awarded compensation of
ARs.58v,3§}O/- with interest at 6% per annum from the
flate’ of petition til} the date of realisatien. Aggrievw
that, the appellant has filed this appeal, seeking
enhancement.
L/,
5. The iearned counsel for the -. K
contended that the compensatien V’
Tribunal towards pain and
and attendant charges and loss of ‘é¥II1€I]iI;’i€i{S’:Of ‘V
totally inadequate. He sthe
compensation awar;§é;d ‘awards
medical expénfsfis is also
inadequat eV.%_”; ‘ ‘V Q’ that the
to be modified.
” fihe learned oounsel for the
second ‘r”c:s§c§1de:1ét._»’s1~i’bmitted that the Tribunal on
” V’ . c0nsidé’m:i0’n ef the material on record, has
and reasonable compensation and
‘ ‘£;ig1E:ref9fe:,’§-.V_it:;cioes not call for interference.
We have carefully considered the
sif£)missions made by the learned counsel far the
l/
appellam and 21150 the learned counsel for the.
respondent.
8. The point that arises for T€>_:1i*._cé3:;15i:(i<::*§3,iiié:;_1
is, whether the Triburufi
reasonabie oompensation? L' '
9. it is rel:-:§éL*i1t “I’;(:«}” I:1o’:§=:2L;v:%. has
awarded 1§s.j:2%.5,Q0£:L/5 V’té;v§9a1’ds pain and
sutfexangé. §ppé11;{§:it.__1if;1é’v.;sa13taz’ned the following
inj11fié§:4n_V V» A I
»1)§ 3 x: 4 <.:ms., over the
mar 3./3rd cflefi ieg.
V 22) 1a¢é2*at¢§d wound measuring 1 x I c1113.,
£)v_éi:I’«1;11e right side of the occipital regigrn.
V’ * “}V(“1-§;erf.é1fg;* shows comminuted fracmI’e/\1ower
{if ma tibia and fibula. ‘V’
” Tfhe appellant has taken treatment as inpatient
a period of 8 days and thereafter, fol1ow–up
trwtmcnt The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.25,000/– towards pain and suifefings which is
L/.
inadequate. Having regard to the nature of
duration and natum of ueatment, in {)1.;tI’
view, a sum of Rs.4G,O€}O/- wQ:.1l.d__ be_– ”
sum towards gain and sufiefings Aiiiiij
is awarded. _ 1
10. The ‘I’rib1__1na1 % sum of
RS300/– iiowards charges,
which is enhanced.
Accordi11g}y, §”i1;__ tar: / -.
” awarded a sum of
Rs.5,OG0j]+«.Vtow§.:fds, lc-$35 of amcrfifles of fife. The
‘~ _ ._hasZ sugared fracmre of kower third of left
and it has resuitcd in permanent
iower iimb. The appellant is a minor
and has tr; suffer the discomfort throughout hcr
” Therefore, in our considemri view, having rewrd
. the nature of disability and the diséomfort the
appellant has ta sufier, a sum of Rs.2{),0O0/– would
t/
be a raasonabie: sum towards loss of amerxities of life
and accordingly, it is awarded.
12. The compensation awarded
Tribunal towards medical expengaes ~§!;os;$
earnings is just and proper and fh_ei*’e-;fare,p’it%.d<3es
call for interference.
13. The total Vc;<;ii2}g)€nsa;L1{i5I1_'L[p§.3Iable cemes to
Rs.9SZ,5()0/ ~ and the bI*r:"ék}"1.1:5
(a) To7véii4dsA ‘ Rs. 40,000] –
(23) Towm Rs. 5,000 /-
(C) ééefffionveyanee,
aagd attendant’ ghagrges Rs. 5,000/ –
»A (§i)–» ‘:If9tA%a;z*ds ii3$s of amenities of life Rs. 20,000] –
H offuture e-amings Rs. 22,500/’ —
…..-ma.–…….–._… ………-..u…-….
TOTAL Rs. 92,5031.»
u..–……..-an…-……_a—-. –.u…….»..
‘ 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the
judment and award passeé by the
L/.
Tribunal in MVC.No.2’27/2003 stands
granting compensation of R8.92,500/-,
Rs.58,300/ –, with interest at 6%
date of petition till the date of :7-
amount shall be investedV’§I:_§”
nationalised or °ti,1.} £he’ ~–.a9¥;el;lant
attains majority and is
entitled to withgxfaw épend for the
upkeep 9,» A
f3raw- ac:6<)1'<1it1gly.
Sd/-
}UD@E
ma