{BY M.B.CRANDRA. C'I¥IOdD.z§,ADV.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE oaagm DAY OF DECEMBER,
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT}:CE N.L FLOOR, MEKHR: CIRCLE,
BANGALORE ~ 560 080. RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1 D.S.SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R«2
Ru] NOTECE DISPE SKI) VVITH)
v ‘0-,,_\
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18-08-2005 “PASSED
IN MVC NO.2él~89/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE 1-<15?" ADDL.
JUDGE. COURT OF SMALL CAUSES 8: MEMBER. MACT.
METROPOLITAN AREA, BANGALORE, {SCCH–10}, PA}?—._TLY
ALLWOING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPEN.SATIC)_l\I
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION-.,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR E"IEAR[N(3§:_:T}i:IS:
N.K.PATIL. J.. DELIVERED THE FOl.LO\/VIl\IC_:–:'"* .- ..
JUDoMEgj»As
This is claimant's appeal seeking enhaf1.A1.een°1er£*1'
Compensation against the jLl1ll'('lg:fner1t an_d" dated
18.8.2005 passed in ofi the file of
the }G\7.AddL Judge, court or sugar Causes and
Member, ;(l'1€1'€i1'1aft€1' referred to as
The Tegbrevltyl. The Claims Tribunal
by j§iégemleI'rt.,_and award has awarded a sum of
:¥°with interest at 6% pa. under different
heads against the claim of appellant for
'v_»Rs.lI),.OTJ,«:_O(l)O/- against respondents. Therefore, the
A felt necessitated to present this appeal on the
grpund that the arnount awarded by the Claims
Tribunal is inadequate and he is entitled for
e:mha11<:e.ment of compe Isaticm.
2. The appellant claims that he was aged about
48 years at the time of accident and he is a x7_ege;t.ab.leé
vendor and he is the sole bread winner in the .
that as ii: may. That on 30.3.2002
when he was walking on the 1eft:ipsidj_eA~of the
HMT Ground, R.T.Nagara lVi3ai:n~…Road’; that ” it
time, the rider of. the..n”1ot.or.c},rcie 04 Y
4573 driven in a rash dashed
against the appellant, appellant fell
down and left lower limb
illetfteeelelg below the knee and
su_stai_n”ed_” Having regard to the
nature of injuries 7,sustained in the accident, the
filed petition against. the respondents
p_’ciain1i_rig:_:’c.on%iper1sation of Rs.l0,00.000/~. The said
petitioniilhad come up before the Claims Tribunal
‘\_for cronsideration on 18.8.2005. The Claims Tribunal,
V.’–V’i_Etf.t_(3I’t:’C21l’f3fl,1l evaluation of the oral and documentary
evidence and other relevant material on record has
allowed the claim petition in part. and awarded
compensation of Rs. 1.4» ,O40/– with interest’. at 6% from
i
the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being
aggrieved by the same. the appellant has presen.ted.<_:lth_e
irrist-ant appeai. claiming enhancement of Co_rn__pe':1satio§n__C' .
on the ground that the amount awa_I_'ded'."b'y"
Tribunal is inadequate and th.,e~"same~ _.l'1'elqlL1'izfes.:
€nl"1aI1(E€H1€I]l.. ' 2 _ V ' V
3. As against this, learned-.VCounsel’ second
respondent — alia. contends
that the compensation-‘awiiaiifdediljyl.l.theflC’iaims Tribunal
is just and is after due
V on record and taking into
corisiderlatioii C of injuries sustained.
Thepréefol-5; jnt.effe_:rCenCev.by this Court is not Called for.
4? have heard learned Counsel appearing for
learned Counsel appearing for the
.seeo1’:d responderit — Insurance Company for
,.lg,C”—q..s,lt;onsidei’ab1e length of time and gone through the
. ‘gr-‘oiiiids urged in the me orandum of appeal.
y”‘
5. After careful consideration of the submission
made by the learned Counsel for both parties,
point that arises for our consideration is: I l V
“Whether the Compensation « _
the Tribunal is just and rea:sonable?’l”‘es.. 1 l
6. After critical evaluatiorrof
and after perusal of juid”gn:i:e~nlt'”s..g;1nd award, what
emerges is that the ap1:§e1lla13l{:V-ylvas 48 years
at the time of§.vaCei:jdent; He
sustained lower limb and
ui1de1″g:orie llsuystained pennarient disability
‘which 8.00/5 to. the lovirer limb. and
_ 300/gto utl1elv’vh._ole body. As per Schedule I of the
\:’N’o.rll§1nenfsfiompensation Act, having regard to the
l<Vj'i':ari_1.f1_.i._uli.f;"i'els, the disability should be taken at 50%
V . to tyholle body. He has undergone treatment: for
it than one month during which he has suffered
"and agony. These aspects have not been
"Considered nor looked into by the Claims 'l'ribLmal.
Therefore. having regard to the nature of injuries
sustained, nature and duration of treatment and pain
I'
£
and suffering. we deem it proper to award Rs.1.00 lakh
towards 'pain and sufferings' as against a
awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
7. The Claims Tribunal has” awarldedfiawlv
Rs.i2,000/- towards ‘medical The
just and reasonable and doesnotseall for lim.erfe’1fenee.
8. The Claims V’f’«-ribunai awarding only
Rs.8,000/~ towards ‘(;.o’11Ve:yar1c&e»,_ food and
attendant the same isiinadequate for the
reason vi’t1h’at._tf:e haswtnldergone treatment. for
more one has suffered amputation of
left leg bleiow’ might have spent some
“”‘«–.rea;{oiiab.le amofiIit–“”towards conveyance, nourishing
charges. This aspect has not been
coiisideifedltxoi’ looked into by the Claims Tribtlnal.
C”~.4.._”T1’akinginto consideration the duration of treatment,
A “-nat1_.1r::: of injuries, we deem it fit to award a sum of
_.Rs.20.000/– towards ‘Conveyance. no1,1r1’s}’1ing food and
attendant charges’ as against Rs.8,000/– awarded by
the Claims Tribunal. %)
Z
9. The Claims Tribunal erred in awarding only
Rs.?’,2OO/M towards ‘loss of income during laidvsup
period’. Having regard to the avocation of i:l1e’va;}pell4a;.it’,~« 3
we reassess the income of the appellant p
pm. He has undergone ti’eatrne1iti’o;i. rnore
month as an inwpatient in the hospital andihte
have taken fo1loW–up t1’eatrne»nf and rest–i’ora:;another
three months. l””I€l’lCE3.’:’.\’7\’i.€ a.\X.rarlfcli” of l{s.”l2,000/~
[Re.3,000 X 4) toWards__’los.s laid up
period’ as by the Claims
‘I’ribuI1a1.”‘* -. V’
10; The ClairriSb’T.ri’i3.tinal erred in awarding only
Rs.2Q–,0OO/4:”towards”.’loss of amenities of life’ without.
3–f”iInfo._ consideration the nature of injuries
VVsiisetain.g§’¢i., ” llf”JV\(é2 Doctor has assessed functional
disaI;)ilit_y’at§E3l0% to the left. lower limb and 30% to the
ll””‘–._VV”u.{ho1e He has undergone treatment for more than
” , l3VO’~days as an in-patient and he has suffered pain and
..agony and undergone surgery for amputation. Taking
V these relevant aspects //ti)/pensideration, Rs.50,OOO/M
is awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ as against
Rs.20,000/~ awarded by the Claims ‘”l’ribunal.
11. Further, the Claims Tribunal
awardirlg Rs.51,840/~ towards ‘loss of £_’1:.vi’.-ur’:e._iiieomefl”
We have already re–ass’essed the lneomlel C
at Rs.3,000/~ pm. The ap»pe.l_1ant,V”w’as
years at the time of accident..v?t’l’lerefore’,.”i.h:e:vapbfropriate
multiplier would be judgment of
the Apex Court inthe & Others Vs.
Delhi reported in
2009 ACJ is assessed at 50% to the
whole it appellant entitled to a I
surrrgofs.Rs.l?.,E34,’0’t)0/– {Rs.3,000 X 12 x 13 X 50%)
ltowardsx ‘?less’«..of future income’ as against Rs.5l,840/–
‘aW’ar_d.ed “Claims Tribunal.
l2V._lnx:the light of the facts and circumstances of
as stated above, the lrlstant. appeal filed by the
‘ ap}aell_ant is allowed in part. The judgment and award
lam 18.8.2005 passed in l\/l.\/.C.No.2489/2002 on the
file of the XIV Add}. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
////
10
Out of the enhanced amount, 50% of the amount
with proportionate interest: shall be ciepositecl in the
name of the appellant in any Nationalised or SC_h.ed:a1«ed
bank for five years. The accrued interest is perniitttdji tn. .
be withdrawn by the appellant pe_1_fiioc1ica1}_yf””*–.:’_’: . i
The remaining 50% with “‘:propoi’tio11a”te’
shali be reieased in favour otiitlqe aljhpeilantiiirnrneidiajtely ” ii
on deposit of the same, by the-E-n:s’u.r’ance Com.pa.ny.
Office is directed draw. accordingly.
Sd/4
JUDGE
S&f~
JUDGE