High Court Karnataka High Court

Manjunatha Reddy S/O … vs Regional Manager National … on 30 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha Reddy S/O … vs Regional Manager National … on 30 November, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna


}e».(_By Sri.”N.S.;.B«hé;t;V”Adveb’:§te)
.éQgLV . ..

Maii’2eger,

R.¢g1ona1 Office,
Shubram Complex,

‘ A..13§i_’nga1ore–56O 001.

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANG_AL§3.:{E’._

DATED THIS THE 30′?” DAY OF NOVEMBER 20–«:.’Q–f f _
:PRESENT{W_ V x 3
THE H{)N’BLE MR.JUs’}::c1;Ai§1;K”.Pgi9r”II£ 4′ X 7′
THE I-ION’BLE

M.F.A.No. 3o’d.9″jc)F
M.F’.A. AN0. ‘2.vO0€3§(1VT’\f1 ; ._

M.F.A.N0.30O9 OF

Between:

Manjunatha Re-ddy, , .4
S / 0. DoddanarflsimhaeRedidy,”
Aged about 37 years’, ”

R/at. No.2329, II1\’/’I:_1_4i1″1,_ _

41″ Cross, Kanaka Nagar, V ..
R.T.}}J.agar Pest, ‘
Ba1’igaI0re–58O 032.” A.

….Appellant

_ Nafional insurance Co., Ltd.,

M’.’e;Road,

%


cf .$’___W,__#…m.Ww~–

y

6

contending that, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under all the heads is inadequate

requires to be enhanced and the-:Ins–urer1 ‘filed_fari.g it

appeal contending that, the

the Tribunal is on higher ‘to: be
reduced by modifying~..V_the’;A”irnpugnegd judgment and
award. 4′ l 1 V 2 l

4». We appearing for
the the Insurer.

for the claimant
submittedfithat; has erred in assessing the

income of thelclairnantlvsat ?4l,00O/~ per month and in

l the to the whole body at 20%

it disability assessed by the Doctor.

_ Therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment

award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be

. modified by enhancing reasonable compensation under

l “all the heads.

E;

1;:

/

fir _.._.~«~..r

5 W_,,._Wm.,..W

Lil Whether the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and proper?

8. The occurrence of the accident and .

injuries sustained by the clairnantiare no_ti’n” it ”

is also not in dispute that, elairnantlwavs aged_’aboiit.A3i?_:

years and working as Sa1es’iM’a.n. Tile

into consideration the aage,’ the claimant
and the his income at
‘€4,000/» reasonable and
we it emerges from the
recordsvidthat, the injuries sustained, he

has taken ut1*eVat1nent- inpatient for 236 days on

hdiffnerent” dates, undergone two surgeries and

I have taken follow up treatment

andwbed’ rest Afor twelve months, during the said period

.fihe,i_fnight. have suffered pain and agony and lost his

ineorne as he could not have attended his work.

“Further, on account of the injuries sustained by the

claimant, he has suffegpermanent disabiiity and the

9′ .._,,_….,.»«~»-*”””‘””‘ “”‘¢
5′

Doctor has assessed the disability at 85% to the

particuiar limb and at 35% to the whoiebodyg he

Tribunai has assessed the disability at

whoiebody, which is on lower side. Therefogg;fytafings

into consideration the nature of’;pthep_i.’1tT’1j_j.1.1’i’ies”Asustained, j

the percentage of disability ,s’u.ijfereAd.by’ the

re~assess the disabiiity at 28%
instead of 1VTribuna1. It is
permanent ‘suffer this disability
through not continue his job
as Saievsfrlan he has to be compensated

towardsppioss ..of’~futurew income. The claimant is aged

years anvdmappropriate Muitipiier applicable is

1 T ribunai has erred in not awarding

any”<con:1pen'sation towards future mefdical expenses and

I1_eedVs" "to be awarded as the ciairnant may require

tredatrnent in future. Taking ail these factors into

"consideration. we award a sum of 360,000/– towards pain

and sufferings instead €50,000/–, 12,92,128/– towards

,4

;/ _,__,,_»

,_,..,w »-.–u—~'""'

.Towardsj'~. loss of income during the ? 48,000/–
period oi treatment

-claimant and the appeal filed by the Insurer are allowed in

H)

medical expenses instead of 34,10,000/–, ?50,000/«« towards
conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges instead
of?16,000/–, €48,000/– towards loss of income
period of treatment for twelve months at the ratelof M

per month, ?’40,000/- towards”””1’ossA “_pof_:.”jamenities}

discomforts and unhappiness,

12 X 15 X 28/ 100) towards odfdifuture income and
€10,000/– tOWai’ds_futgu’1;e’rifIedi(ia1V_eitpefittses. In all, the
claimant is f01€_V–_0;_;_,;’tioiripeiisation of %’7,01,728/–

instead’ the”oobi:eak– up is as follows:

Towards pain and Eijxtfoiindg-sip 3 50,000 /-
Towards medical expenEE;s” 2,92, 128 /W
Towards conV*eyai1ea3, nourishing food % 50,000/–
and, attendant. charges 0

AH

,.T’owardos’*l_odsvsof ‘amenities of life ? 40,000/r

Towards’ “§u»t_u1*eV’tnedica1 expenses 3 10,000 / —

‘I’ow_ardsV.1osdSf,–of future income Q’ 2,0 1,600/-
” ‘ Total i’ 7,o1,723/-

‘ For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the

V part and the impugned judgment and award passed by the

{I ……–»»~—‘ “‘””

Tribunal in MVC No.’1679/2003 is hereby modified,
awarding compensation of ?66,728/- with -interest .T2i’t–. 60/o
p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation V.
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. l it n J
The insurer is directed to” “de’posii..¢
compensation with interest within ._

of receipt of a copy of this judgrnielm. and

The enhancedAconipenvsationllshall ‘be released in
favour of Q deposit by the
Insurer. “”” H 1 = u I l

‘iihe by the Insurer shall be
transrnittedto Tribunal immediately.

; ‘Draw alWard,lV’ac.eordingly.

Sd/~

lUDGE

Sd/~
JUDGE