V' fBa_1aga1orew21. RESPONDEZNTS
' R~2 dispensed With]
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010
BEZFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE ARAVEND K
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO14945 OE¥1"~f?.;:O0if?_"».[v1VV/i""§71T' '
BETWEEN:
Mohan U,
S / 0. Uclay Shankar.
Aged 19 years,
R/at No.27}, Prakash Nagaz', " E
Bangalore «21. " ~ APPELLANT
[By Sri. Shripad V.Sh3.St1-1, Acivfi)?
1. United India E"nVS1_1fat_T(:€ C0.Ltd.,
D .0 .\}/'L Chit.r.ap:--,1ra~~ 'Bhavan,
4;: '1"E'--AI; Cross, Sm Main.
- ' 'Mg_a§1eShwafa1i1--;--« "
Banga1'0rr:--55
" ' jijs. M_e1::.ager.
2. ' M13 .Ve;{;1<.t.;i_enM1e=.::VAI'eft side of the road at 6"' Cross, Prakash
on 14-09-2004 met with an road
Q traffic ...'a{cg:ide1ii'. since a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA--
0' dashed against him. on account of which
he is said to have sustained injuries and was
3
hospit.alize.d. On account of the injuries s'usi:ain.ed,
claim petition was filed in lVIVC.No.6255/2004 under
Section .166 of Motor Vehicles Act el'ai.ni.ifig
Compensat.ion oi" Rs.2,90,000/~. The first
contested the petition by Ru
statement and denying the pet,i.f:iontA_'lai}e19n2en--t's._l
respondent No.2 also filedlldetailedi'"written.: étateirnent
denying the petition aVe:jrne’nts;*
3. On considerilnge’the__ii5lea:dilnggs’; the Tribunal
proves that he has
a motor Vehicle accident
that”v.ias’itaken«blaee on 14.09.2004», at about
p.rnf”Ii’ear Rarnesh Eleetricals. 6′-it Cross,
1 Nagar, Bangalore. due to user of
bearing No.KA»02u~ELu~’7993, being
driven. by its rider in an actionable negligence?
it ‘–._?,)llWhethe1’ the petitioner is eniiitiled for the
compensation as prayed for? If so, against
whoin?
‘ V.appear1’I1g ‘V for the appellant and
t%Sr’i.AIM;Ven»ka.te’s.h, learned Counsel appearing on
Tribtxnal has not taken into consideration the
etadencttfi of PW.2~Doc.tor who has opined that disability
3) What order and award’?
4. The claimant in support of
examined Smtfiowramma, namely the m()t.1′;’é§r H
Q ;,…~~– __
and the D0et0r,_Mazt1ipa1 §\§0rthside’AH’osp’1t.a1 when»
him was examined as PW2. ”
pleadings and evidence or]. Trhtbunald the
ciaim petition in part eorflprgrpgétion of
Rs.1,20,000/– together from the
date of petit.ig2n’::.;tVi;il It is this
judgment é¥.nd_..””a,\Xfar(i, 4W§1tiei1.V:A,is”‘v.n0w assailed in the
present; * t
5. 2 I” .have_ Shripad V. Sh astri, learned
ofvfiritttfirtshaila for the first respondent.
Sri. Shripad V.Shastri w<::L1ld esrltend that
as/"
6
discharged on l7.09.2004. He has also stated the
Clairriant. was regularly takirig physiotherapy and
subsequently when he was examined on
i.e.. 2 years after the date of accident,
complained of constant pain in right__hee_l'”andifoot and, “‘
on Clinical and physical examiriatioriyiby t’1rie”‘D.oCto.ri’–..1ffé.t.:
has opined that. terminal of is
restricted and last 15 ;_.degree.s—offlexion ‘is’£13~i,I.1l°ul and
has Concluded that disability’ efitrent 28% to the
leg and 9% to the V”
9.3. Con.side:i’ir1g..’this”‘–.evidenee on record, I am of
the opinion’ t}:1at’ .aV’.rr1ayr”giI1al increase is to be made
uI1d»e~§; head-V.p__ain and agony and accordingly a
_Rs.10,000/~ is awarded towards pain.
ai’1d”a’gonyV{‘.j—- In View of the Doctors evidence and the
Iynature. injury sustained by the claimant. 1 am of the
it :f_’ot)ini–or1 a further sum of Rs.l0,000/~» is required to he
i a\é;ra1*ded towards future medical expenses, namely for
a”;/
No.1 within a period of two
vveeks from ltod”a.y..V 4′
V oafl§’s”.’.
ea
1′
removal of the i1’1p1a11i.s. ‘I’h1.1s. a marginal increase of
Rs.20,000/ – would be just and reasonable
compensation to be awarded, considering all the .as.§5eets
irmluding that of the evidence of the Doctor.
In view of the above the follcsivifig ortier,
The appeal is alloweq’ palstfi
compensation of Rs.2.€l;Q_00lasldiscussed
herein above which shallthe rate of 6%
p.a. from the;’~’dateI”of of payment.
The said _’ favour of the
claimant since increase. No order
as to costs. 4;’ ”
‘~.S:1fi.’Srishai}.a,–.learned Counsel is permitted to file
salt;
3
5%.,»