High Court Karnataka High Court

Malagarasamma vs V Yellappa on 20 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Malagarasamma vs V Yellappa on 20 September, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
BEFORE " '

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENIvAsE  "

Misceilaneous First Appeal Nvo;"'7'80B"_of    2

BETWEEN

Maiagarasamma.

S/O Madaiah.

Aged about 51 Years,    -  

R/O. Bhigathagallivillage.   " '

Ma1ava11iTq.,     

V  _ T  "...Appe11ar1t

(By Sri. M 'Y  fa   

And.

1. V;-,Ye11appa':':'-~._Vd    --
S /  Venkata-swamy ' « '"
R/OfD_oo1' I'-E_o.71_O;A..~"

; Avalahalliu 1\/Iain Road,
" "«:B_V__atarayaf1ap_ura.

   Baogaiore -- 26.

A   Manager,

V "TOrienteleizinsurance Co. Ltd.,
--- §\/Iv; 'C .~ . Road, Mandya.
PJov;.* transferred to

 A.  Do", Muslim Hostel Complex.

V "_Opp. Fire Brigade Office ,
' ''Saraswathipuram.
Mysore.
 Respondents

(By Sri. S V Hegde Mulkhand. Adv. for R2.
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)

ex»

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated: 16.7.2009 passed in MVC
No. 336/2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn},__and
MACT, Malavalli, partly allowing the claim petitiorifor

compensation and seeking enhancement” — of

compensation.

This appeal coming on fo Admisssi’0’i*1.;’_-this ‘iday, ‘*

the Court, delivered the following:
Junemnmr,

This appeal is by the for -ehhaneement of
compensation awarde«d:’oy t_hei_Tribu.rial._

2. Heard,» and with the
consent lapupiearing for the parties, it
is

3. Foizthe convenience parties are referred to

avsitheiy are ‘referred. to in the claim petition before the

r}rnbunatg”.,

41.. facts of the case are:

.. ‘That on 19.11.2004, when the claimant was

‘ ”’..VVI”r1oiring on the left side of footpath of Maddur–Ma1ava1li

road at Bgugatahalli village to purchase some articles at

that time a jeep bearing registration N0.KA–04P.79

@-

came from Malavalli side in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against her. as a result, she fell

down and sustained injuries. Hence. she filedj’a.:’cl_aim

petition before the MACT. Malavalli; ‘

compensation of Rs.2.50.000_/’–.

« by id x

impugned judgment and M.

compensation of Rs.31.000)’*v–~,:Wii.th interestj’atV”G°/E5’pia.

5. As there is no” :,re’gajr:ding occurrence of
accident, negligence”Vand:’;liabili_tjzuhoflzthe insurer of the

offending remains for my

consideration in-th.eji.s: ”

whether. i i Vhtiiie v4l:V’i’i’cifi.aritum of

compensation awai”de”dj the Tribunal is
just and prop_er»_”,ordo”es it call for

~ .enhanci–ement’?

_6. }\fte’r’.’h.hea:ring»4étheitlearned Counsel for the parties

perusing the:i:a.W:ard of the Tribunal. I am of the

” that the”co%npensation awarded by the Tribunal is

andfproper, it is on the lower side and therefore

hi ” ‘ ~ not

ithiisjjdteserved to be enhanced.

$'”

7. As per wound certificate EX. P 4 the claimant has

sustained the following injuries :

i] Abrasion over the left ankle 5 x 3 helf

3x 2 ems

ii} Swelling and tenderness« .

lower 1/5 leg p _ 9

iii] Blackened [L] greatei-.toe

iv] Abrasionowar 13cm

Refer to high ‘ 0 A

There’ 0 wound certificate
that JSS gag low 1/3 L leg. The
doctor above injuries No. 1, 3
and 4A’are:’ sirrlplémjril and injury no.2 is grievous

in nature. 0 fled was treated as inpatient in JSS Hospital,

days. PW 2 Dr. C.S. Rupa Kurpar has

stated:0°that.;'”claimant was operated on 22.11.2004,

whereipcalcaneal traction was applied. She was treated

00 withvvlskeletal traction and she was discharged on

15.12.2004. He again examined the claimant on

H 30.8.2008 and taken X ray and found the following

permanent physical disabilities:
%/_

1) Malunion of fracture both bone of left leg at
lower 1/ 4411;

2) Severe stiffness of left ankie joint;

3) Moderate stiffness of left sub talar is f

4) Moderate stiffness of left mid t–arsa1: _

He has stated that there is iteheaieft ‘:

lower limb.

8. Considering ‘lt””}i.’.P.J” nathtefeleffin3ur1ee’;’ R’s.25,ooo/–
awarded by the Tribuiial suffering is

on the low-ertlside aT_1d:it~’is”des–erved:fto be enhanced by

anotherwRs.,j’iO:;OCG,/ttgfnd 1 award Rs.35,000/_

under theeea.

97;’ ” T1’hexc-1airn’ant’ has produced medical bills for Rs.

“and the Tribunal holding that there is no

._ ‘C’ol1Ae’Ctfonu tax on the medical bills has awarded

towards medical expenses which is

if * irnproper. Considering the nature of injuries it is just

proper to award RS.12,300/– towards medical

“expenses. as against Rs.3,000/– awarded by the

Tribunal. fig

10. Considering the nature of injuries and duration
of treatment I award Rs.15,000/– towards incidental

expenses such conveyance, nourishment and __attendant

charges as against Rs.3.000/– awarded by’t-he

11. Claimant claims to be a

vending business and her :incorn’e Could .assessed*at’g

Rs.3,000/- p.rn. Nature oi”esl§f1;t1:iesi”sfiggésra that she
must have been restvatfleast for a
period of three Rs.9,000/– is
awarded losgspof laid up period.

12. stated by the doctor
and an and unhappiness she has

topurrdergo her iuttire life, Rs.15,000/«~ is awarded

C’ «towards loss of amenities.

‘ is also present before Court and seen by

the Colurttfas well as learned Counsel appearing for the

xinsureri’ She walks with the help of a ‘walker’ and an

it gatte-‘ndant. Considering the same, disability stated by

” ~ the doctor to the limb at 65% based on medical records,

$4′,

appears to be just and proper. 1/ 3″ of the disability
caused to limb has to be taken as disability caused to

the whole body. It comes to 21.66%. Claimantlti.s_”a:ged

about 48 years as evident from medical_.ifeeor_ds__f.a~2fi_dy_v

identity card. Multiplier applieable to _.her’ .

‘I3’. So loss of future ‘income ‘w*o’r1_{s o”u.t”*:;_to

Rs. 1 ,O2,960/– [Rs.3,00O/§«lV_;{“~2V2/ iooi xi ti.y13«}…an;:1 it is: *

awarded. ‘

14. Thus the clairnajnty the following

C0rnpensat§_.’on’jg.-“V

~-1-}~ _ p”*gPaii*1:;;A.and.suffering. Rs. 35,000 /-

2} _ A”‘Medieal-expenses Rs. 12,300/-
‘~.3)’- ‘lnCifcl.ental’eie§ipei*1ses Rs. 15,000/W

41 4’ _ Towards lo_ss of income

L –._V during7.laid~7up period Rs. 9,000/-

” 5] Towards loss of amenities Rs. 15,000/–
Fiiture. loss of income Rs. l.O2,960/~

Total Rs.1.s9,26o/-

15. lleojordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the

* :J_tidgi”neIit and award of the Tribunal is modified to the

extent stated herein above. The claimant is entitled for

it a total compensation of Rs.1,89,260/– as against

Rs.3l,00O/—- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at

fir

V _N0_éorde_r as to costs.

6% pa. on the enhanced compensation of
Rs.1.58,260/M from the date of claim petition ,t:11p the

date of realisation.

16. The Insurance Company i_s..d,irect:ed”to’:fiep(;s_it_ the

enhanced compensation amotint {interest

two months from the date_Lof.Vtreceipt of this”.

judgment.

17. Out of the 75% with
proportionate invested in FD.

in the any nationalised or
sched.h”leVd’_A 1 of 6 years and the
remahatngét , proportionate interest is

ordered_to reIe’aseti1 in favour of the claimant.

Sd/-1
Iudga

_ “mgIf”