IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 05m DAY OF AUGUST 2009 lu
PRESENT V E
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTIC:E"N'.--K.PITTII; "A
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUVS'FIfiC'F, E
MFA.No.3'0.66/200*fA.[::«iV)T
BETWEEN I
M.Harneed,
S/0 M.Abdu1Kha.der4, '
Aged about 50 yéars-,"_,. '
Occ: Tea Deaier,
R/0 Uppa11i, 1ndavé:'a Pést,
Chik1naga1ur._--A57'71O1'V'if-..,_"M
(By Sri.D.C.Jagé1c1¢eslT; Adz_E:. ;}
&.'.I-Q3
1. Jgseph ,Ja.-nfies'
S / 0 S§.pri_A-Mania.' "
Age: 35--ye'ars, ' --
' 'Driver of Van _N~0,KA 18- 163 1,
"TR/0* Uppalli _ lnciavara Post,
'' «C;;hikID.aga1uTV.~7_~ "577 101
.. 41 Haneef,
"ST/D«M.Hameed,
V Age: .45 Years,
. APPELLANT
Owner of Van N0.KA18--163},
R/0 Uppalli, Indavara Post,
Chikmagaiur -577 101.
3. M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
Panduranga Complex,
Chikmagalur -- 577 101.
By its Manager ;,11E;s{PtO'NDIi:;\Jfr:'3;gagr'
(By Sri.Ani1 Babu C 8: Ass0ciates.f0r_.R1 V " V
Sri.A.K.Bhat for R3)
Thts MFA is filed u/-S_;"1 _'7fJ_(1}{. 'of against the
judgment & award dated passed in
MVC.No.270/00 on the file of Add1.', District and Sessions
Judge, MACT, Chikm'a._g'alurl,_ partiy 'aII0W:'ngVVV?the claim petition
for c0mpensat10n4.&..Se§e'k1ng enhaneertjgmntgof Compensation.
This MFA day, HBILLAPPA, J.,
delivered the fo11dw.ing:-- _ _
"gliQ§MENT
is direeted against the judgment and award,
dated» .Tpa'ssed by the MACT, Chikmagalur, in
Ta ,tivrvc.No;270/_2000.A
"(W
A the impugned judgment and award, the
has granted compensation of Rs.1,41,-426/-- with
z,/
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of payment.
3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has .
appeal, seeking enhancement.
4. In brief, the facts are, thatvlon
11.15 p.n1., the appellant was_v""~c0ming: frofnvl to *1'
Chikinagalur in a van bearing N0.Ix{A:,1"8_/l "Wh,en:§the van
was coming near Gavana'ha}li,,_V dlnfiotiorcycle bearing
No.CRX--1466, drivenilby 1l*aah' and negligent
manner dashed' a result of that, the
appellant sn«stai.ned.,V"" The appellant claimed
c0mpensation_oi"--. The Tribunal has awarded
cc5mdpensati¢r;cii~ o:f'l2s.1,;l'1','426/-- with interest at 6% per
of petition till the date of payment.
1' ",3.HAggrieVed"'«by appellant has filed this appeal, seeking
4"enhanc.ement;"
L2
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain
and sufferings, loss of amenities of life and incidental
expenses is totally inadequate. He therefore, .
the impugned judgement and award ne_ed.s_ to be it
6. As against this, the leameld cQ'_t11iVse:1'~fo1'_:'the
respondent submitted that, Tribnnalpp:e~.on_:"""'proper " it
consideration of the material, on reeer,d’,.ha.s awardedjust and
reasonable compensation not call for
interference.
7. -_ha,\wr’e7.is-arefu’i1§”aconsidered the submissions
made by the learned coudridseinfigréthe parties.
8. pointlthat: arises for our consideration is.
wiheptfiaer’ -» _thej_V ‘dfiiibunal has awarded just and reasonable
* conipensatiori? ~ V’
V.
9. It is relevant to note, the Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.40,000/– towards pain and sufferings. g”-.._’p1’he
appellant has sustained the following injuries:-
[i] A lacerated wound measuring ll/2″,
on the right eyebrow,
[ii] Fracture over the frontal bonel’–nearg,ltI!li1e “oi’bitl’or1VF,
the right and
(iii) A lacerated wourid 1/2 on the
right eye.
The appellant –asfinpatient for a period of
19 days. The inju.ries:”-hpai.re”resulted in permanent disability
to the brain Tribunal has awarded a sum
of, x to.ward_s___vpain and sufferings, which is
inadequat.e. regard to the nature of injuries, duration
nature of treatment, in our considered view, a sum of
would be a reasonable surn towards pain and
“and accordingly, it is awarded.
Lt///.
10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.56,él-26/–
towards medical expenses, attendant charges._l:’-kind
conveyance. The appellant has taken treatmentas ~
for a period of 19 days and has produc»ed..rnediclall’ ll’
tune of Rs.54,526/–. Therefore, it is to .
Rs.60,0O0/– towards medical V and” T
attendant charges and acco’rdingly’,”‘itlis a’W.arded.”–..
11. The Tribunal Rs.25,000/c
towards loss of has suffered
injury to his I7ihg”l””l”~L..’_::.lE$:”:{1′.;:.:” frontal bone and it
has resulted in of 10% in respect of the
brain functioning the right eye. The appellant
to s_nTfer_ldiscornfort_throughout his life. The Tribunal has
of Rs.25,000/– towards disability and
.cliscorrlfort, inadequate. Having regard to the nature
ldipsabilitypland discomfort, the appellant has to suffer, in our
view, a sum of Rs.50,000/– would be a reasonable
li//
sum towards loss of amenities of life and accordingly, it is
awarded .
14. The compensation awarded by the
towards loss of income during the period of treatrnentiipi’s,’jus’t:A ‘
and proper and therefore, it does not cvaiiforp
15. The total compensationiflpayab1e’–
Rs.1,80,000/– and the break–up istgf;si.,fo11c§ws,:-r
[21] Towards pain 8: sufferings”, 5′(3.000/-
(b) Towards medical & incidental Rs. s0,00o/-
[C] Towards iosé or life Rs. 5o,ooo/-
(c) Towards loss of
the period of atreatrnen’t._ ” Rs. 20,000/–
1.6,. the appeal is allowed and the
Eeirripugnedii judgnient and award, passed by the Tribunal, in
2000, stands modified, granting compensation
V-Viof.._’Rs.i;8O,OOO/-, instead of Rs.1,41,426/–, with interest at
Q/,
6% per annum, from the date of petition til} the date of
payment.
The third respondent shall deposit the
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy this order.. V’
The entire amount shall be re1eascf;~(i..
appellant.
Draw up the award, a¢eording£y{.”v-.
ptgdffm
Eudge
3&5
Eudgs