IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23313 DAY OF OCTOBER. 2010
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE BSREENIVASE eojirpa
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 10994
Between
Mahesh,
S/o. Narasegowda
Aged 16 Years, _
R/ at. Kaveripura, Kamakshipalya; V V
Near Mahadeshwara Tempiep, " *
Bangalore -- 79. '
Since Minor Rep. by'h1_Zs fathfer a'r1dgg V
Natural Guardian Narasegowda"';'g ip ..
Aged about V '
S / 0. Late Nara4s_Vimhaiai'."
Appellant
(B$}"S_fi.' S}1ripati..V Shastri, Adv.)
'Az{'1d=f'=
V ~ :B..Raha§€nathuIla Khan,
9:5 ..
Majorf'by age,
,__R,'.a-'L' No. 186,
.. Road, Shankarapuram,
" Bangalore.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Do VI, Srinivasa Mansion, I Floor,
No.364, 1031 B Main, 3*" Biock,
Jayanagar.
Bangalore -W 560 011.
By its Divisional Manager.
Respondents
{By Sri. B C Seetharam Rao, Adv. for R2,
notice to R1 is dispensed with) ‘
This MFA is filed U /s 173(1) of MV Ae’tiia.g.;§:.iids::gdthe
Judgment and award dated: 01/08/2008gpassedffin
MVC No.8931/2007 on the file of x\ri11.jAda;_V. ‘Judge,
MACT Court of smail c.:;u”sesi,. A_ 13ar,1gaIo_reV, -Jpaxtiy j
allowing the claim petition’-._ for ..–Compensation 0′
seeking enhancement of compensation. _ ” ‘
This appeal for day}.
the Court, delivered the fo11owi.r_1g.:_v ‘ 9
0’ ‘i:3j,r…v”§the claimant. seeking
enha.nCernent’:?f~of=ficornpensation awarded by the
Tribunal’ *
‘For the’-s.a_ke_of convenience parties are referred to
‘ they arevreferred to in the claim petition.
.. facts of the Case are:
That on 02.11.2006 when the claimant was
travelling in the bus bearing registration No.
TN—O1–N–7 39 from Kamakshipalya towards Magadi side,
near Cholanayakanahalli due to rash and negligent
driving of the bus by its driver it lost eoritroi”*.iand
dashed against a lorry bearing registrationVliIo’ii:”‘KA”‘_’eO2
1890, as a result the elaim’an–tr flgriiexfous i
injuries. Hence he filed a
natural guardian fathie1~:.:”before . ‘Bangalore’
seeking compensation .u’:l and the
Tribunal has awarded of Rs.77,000/-
with intercsidli’ it iiii V’
4. As’ ti;-ere’V.’is .rio’i’.’jdispute’v.: regarding occurrence of
accident,negiigene’s’i~.§ffid_’ liability of the Insurer of the
offendiriggbb vehicle ” only point that remains for
Vednsideratiodn’ is; «
‘Whether the compensation awarded by
it ‘v~.thxe ‘i’ribunal is just and reasonable or does it
eallfor enhancement?
5. ” ,d:After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for
in r parties and perusing the judgment and award of the
Tribunal I am of the View that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it
is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be
enhanced.
6. As per discharge summary the alias
sustained post traumatic raw rig’l1t
anterolateral area with fraclturapof fiiager,
proximal phalanx. Injuri’eS__~susta_irled
evident from wound out patient
record Ex. P 11 eiridence of the
claimant and the :,doc.tor PWs 1 and 2
respectiyeiir. M.V. in his
evidenglg*~~. claimant was admitted
‘.:2.’l11.2006 with the history of
RTA. A Srikanth Iyengar and Dr.
treatedihf: Claimant by surgical method and
‘ Uwoundl delo’1<i._dement for the fracture of proximal of ring
"finger right hand and discharged on 8.11.2006.
he along with dr. Narendra Orthopaedician
jexaxninea the claimant on 23.07.2008 for assessment of
disability and found tenderness at scar area, 50% loss
of ROM at right shoulder joint, flexion normal,
extension restricted to 80 degree at right shoulder joint
and assessed 18% disability to right upper limb and 8%
to the whole body.
7. Considering the nature of inju.ri-ssh.Rsi~;25,0QO;’i.–p
awarded by the Tribunal towards. is
just and proper and it doe.~:…_not for enii.anQ{3rI1ent. *
8. As Rs.22,000/”–~..awaridednjbyjithpe “tribunal towards
medicai and incidentalh based on the
medical bi};1s’:pr_’«3duceci for Rs. 19,240 /-
and ‘thekiigower side and 1 award
Rs.f;2v5i’tjO0v,tf-§_vuritierfthiese phéads.
9. CIairnantV”stuiduent aged about 15 years. He was
1_ool{e_ti after’ father during treatment period by
‘ regular work. Therefore it is just and
“proper Rs.5,000/– towards loss of income of =
the of the claimant during treatment period and I
3” _ award the same.
‘i 10. Considering the disability stated by the doctor and
an amount of discomfort and unhappiness he has to
1%»
undergo in his future life. I award Rs. 15,000/~ towards
loss of amenities and future unhappiness as_..__against
Rs.10,000/– awarded by the Tribunal and Rs.so..poQ0/-
towards permanent disability as again-st’
awarded by the Tribunal.
1 1. As the claimant is
towards loss of future
12. Thus the cla:irnant..–i–s.A'”entitledl for…the following
compensation: . if V A
1) . Pain. & :fslii’ffei{.%;r;es«»l:ltr.. V” Rs. 25,o0o/-
2) H _ Medicaid’-& eancidentai ”
ffff L’ Rs. 25,000-
3)’ . i’n.eom’e’of the father
* the.cla.i__rnant
l ,du1″.ing_ treatment period Rs. 5,000 / «
, . _4) V of-amenities Rs. 15,000/~
‘5}x Towards permanent
V’ Disability Rs. 30,000/~
l Tota} Rs.1,00,000/-
Iuuuuvono——– ————– ——
1l3;vl;Aecordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The
“ll , judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the
extend stated hereinabove. The claimant is entitled for
a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/~ as against
%,.
Rs.”/7,000/– awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation of Rs._23,000/-
from the date of claim petition till tiie’1::’f¢1e§te’ of
realisation.
14. The Insurance Company is:di1feeted4…to- the”-
enhanced compensation – ..__ . _ t terest it ‘A tvifia
months from the date of of this
judgment. Out oAf._..ti’1e with proportionate
interest is in the name of
claimant. bank for a
amount is ordered to
be the claimant.
No order_ase’to_e_ost.
It …..
Judge