M Padmanabha S/O D Muniswamy Reddy vs G N Bharama Gowda on 16 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M Padmanabha S/O D Muniswamy Reddy vs G N Bharama Gowda on 16 September, 2008
Author: Deepak Verma Gowda
* *  ' ~ _  ' Oballappa Garden

     The Oriental Insurance 0o.Ltd.

DATED THIS THE mm my 09     V
BEFORE   ' _ t  %' % ff:   

mscnxumnous  H  %'¢;~.r 2004 n_a_1_n

Son of D.M 

Rcsié1iI1gatVI\Z-?a,6f¥?"'  ' ~
KSRTC Layou.t,'9fi4_(11f¢'&s 

III MaiI1;.J.P.Niagai*, 2F§'_.»PI1ase
Bangalore"-560.0'?8   -Appellant


    Smt.N.Sha1-adha, Advocates)

No."32;' .Upstairs, 1" Cross

., 'rang Silk Farm
A'  Bangalore 560 082

No.342, Sampigc Road

Near 1 1'11 Cross ,.,
Malieswaram fig


3. Gundu N. Bharama Gowda
Son of Neelakantappa

Aged about 45 years

No.32, Upstairs, 13* Cross
Oballappa Garden

Tata Silk Farm     '   
Bangalore 560 032   -Respenderzts

(By M.Arun Ponxmppa,  .Resfi$fidéfit

This Miscellaneous.-'V-l?*.3':st  'V is" filed under
Section 173(1) of_.t.h4::f Motmr l__JckiiclcS' £i{:t,___l988, seeking to
modify the award 10.2.QQ3 in MVC No.135O of
1998, on the file {if Mct;.0r"'A{:-::id¢x1t Claims Tribunal,
Court of Sm;_1H"~(}'a1i£§s,  (SCCHJI) and to
enhance tljxé oompicnséifion as awarded by the Tribunal.

Thls   Appeal commg' on for
hearing  * y, "DE-.EPA'_i{ VERMA,J. delivered the
fouowdng; 2  .   

    and Smt.N.ShaIadha, learned

 for the appellant. Bri M.Arur1

« --.  léiéxned counsel appeanw for Respondent No.2

V Company. None appeared for Respondents 1

3-i:nd..3.éven after service.

With consent arguments heard. Records perused.


3. cmmanz is m appeal under Section 173(.1«}~—‘¢’_>jif’.”

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the V >

22.10.2003 passed by the Meter

Tribunal, Bangalore in MVC No.-_1__35{A) “‘ 199E’s;”V’%’ .

injuries said to have been me in a
motor road accident, he tote} eunount
of Rs.i2,00,000/– to 1 and 2
jointly and at the rate are
peer cent : enhancement.

4. are not in dispute are
mentioned ” 4′ V

1997′.’ 2.30 3.313., the appellant was

others in a Matador Van bearing

4635, when it met with a motor road

sgeeidenue of rash and negligent driving of the

e’.e:j;1»eAAVby4.3fesV1.)ondent No.3 – its driver. At the mlevant point

“the said vehicle was owned by Respondent No.1

insured with Respondent No.2. Soon after the


accident, he was taken to Bharathi

Nelamangala. But, after getting

Jayanagar Orthopaedic Center,’ It also”

in dispute that the appellant v–tiI1patie;itw~.fer days
and thereafter advised o:tl”eix”it1onths

and he was further advised’ walk1n’ g.

5. Appellant, V’ into brick
manufactu¥i¥1g_ Rs.5,000/- per
month. Bait, in valid and 1% evidence,

his monthly iiieeme at Rs. 3,000 / -.

deposed that appellant had

interiocmng nail; in the first spell he

A amen: 12.9.1997 to 27.9.1997; and he was

‘ ” talc-tame again and win for follow up treatment.

rpferzeanent disability to the lcfi; lower limb was

by the doctor as 25 per cent and for whole body

teas to the extent of 10 per cent. Apart from disability

on account of blindness, which also had occasioned on


account of the said accident, doctor has

that he would require a further sum” V

removal of implants. Accordmg’ V to

had sustain’ ed fracture of left jfif

and also suffered loss ofxvisjon eye. A’

7. Learned counsel therefore
contended ma; sustained
by the appgflélt. 30 years at the
time of of compensation awarded

under ditI’e:’éf1t4__11e:e.d*s _iE; .’g3rz. lower side and (ICSCTVCS to

Iearned counsel for the

of compensation awarded to the

appeflarfit .i:§’ proper and adequate and calia for no

c . = V.

….–‘l%’hu3 the only question that is required’ to be

by us is whether the amount of Rs.2,00,()0O/-

awarded to the appellant for the aforesaid injuries said to


have been sustam ed by him on account of the

accident can be said to be just,

the same deserves to be

9. No doubt it is true that
for 21 days and had We places. To
add to his misery, there at eye sign in
one .5: the eyes, net be in a
poeifion ” as he was doing
earlier. no error in coming to

the oonclusietze must have been earning

per 111i’)1′::1:V1:jV___:_=_1_._e:i1e had not led any evidence to

V’§heei;Vi.15et on brick business and thereby

vwa.s em per month. Still we feel that the

to the appefiant under difierent tee is

side and deserves to be enhmwed. We

deem it fit and proper to enhance the amounts

. ‘ j * appellant under the following heads.


(1) For pain and suficring, agony… Rs. H
(2)!-‘orthe amount spent for I w ‘_ 0:’ :
medical ufient

(3)Foroonvcyancc, V *_
nourishment, etc. Rs’;~.__i£’;00C,00

(4) Towards loss ifi11oetm:

during the period of ”

tneattnentasassessed – V Q ~ _

by the Tribunal V “.*.–.[f Rs,_’15,000.00
(5) Towards loss mimgomef.’ .
as assessed by,th_,e ‘ ‘Rs. 58,000.00


ofleitcyc ‘ *

Rs. 50,000.00

(7) Loss of ua::_1d .0
fi1tuI’e–Io8$ of Rs. 30,000.00

V. Iifl;-, spaié1vi”ij«riV<:ludiI1g

Rs. 20,000.00

tothe_ap;)e1,1.9;~ntcamcsto… …Rs.3,13,000.00

_ V amount would carry interest at 6 per cent per
_ fmm the date of pelmon til! it is actual paid. The
4: ..a_@2oant already received by the appellant would stand

adjusted. w


10. The appeal is accordingly allowed holding:

appellant would be entitled .t’*’%, V

Rs.3,13,000/- from the mspondent$’:j9ii:§t_1’j1

Impugned award thus standé t–£’.)
extent. Cost of litigation *9 No.2
throughout counsers feeat%%r§s;3,’oroo%;[g’if:-e:«:zfik%, %’ ed.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information