High Court Karnataka High Court

Munirajaiah S/O Channappa vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 8 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Munirajaiah S/O Channappa vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 8 April, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
MFA 10494.06
1

IR' THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT A'

DATED 11113 THE sth DAY 01:' APRIL, 7     -

BEFORE_,....  %  V
THE Honrnm !|i!R..JU3':1v'*3&(7-E;3"'E..$§.'«!";4!_L."1'I1I:.:}'    'A
M1scz_=;_1_.;_..mgous mas?  i¢o;;o49w4:} 
BETWEEN:     VV

Muniazajaiah,

S/0 Chanraappa,

Aged about 30 years,   
Near (}ramadeva?1xa..Ten)Lp1e,' " 
Babasaba Palygi, gr'  1: '"
Banga1o1'e~6Q. -j_   ' _  ¢_   V :APPELLAN'!'

(By 3;-1.:;2k".%§s 1':is:ra.:i,%;;::rti§.3Vi,  _ 
AND:

1. ;"£'hc New India Assurazlce C0,, Ltd.,
_" '  its uMana"11ge:,...P€o. 10,
'  Lax1.niV's';'~Ix3mp1ex, 2"" floor,
V' '~ , V Oggpositsé' to Vani Vilas Hospital,


-V 2.  I_<.i¥:ag'ei?y:1ra,

 

Aggzi' Majar,
" * 4_ Srifldayarauga Motor Sezvice,
._ "Pete, Maiavaiii Post,
" Mandya District. : RESPONDENTS

T ‘ “(By 8ri.M.1’ilarayanappa, Adv. for R-1,
1

R29″!

This appeal is filed 11/ s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
against the Judgment and Aware}. dated 05.64.2006 passed in
MVC N0.5249/ 2904 on the file of the V111 Add}. Judge, Member
Member, MAC’?-V, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitaxl Area,

MFA 10494.06
2

Bangalore (SCCI~i~–5), partly allowing the claim pe1i’tio11_d’for

compensation and seeking enhancement of compe:n.satji_on_Lc- V ‘

This Appea}. coming on for hearing, this _

delivered the following: H _–

Junsncmm’, . 3 A

1. This appeal is by égejured c!aV_3’dVm:ag.f”

enhaacement of compensation.

2. In an accident inV01\%’i%1ge1 {hat occurxed on
07.10.2002, the dgrievous injuries.
The eds 166 of the Motor
Vehicles: }Xc*g–. fiiflaey’ ‘.’}XccV:1;dents’ Claims Tribunal,

Bangalofi-=._, in a sum of Rs.4,00,{)OO/ A-.

3. himself as PW»-1. Dr.S.U.Shiva

_ V. E\ifasVVd’e3;amm’ PW-2. Exs.P. 1 $10 12 werfi Produced

” ;:[jZ}(%.:’I€SpOI1(ICI1tS though contested the claim did

notdieéad any_e3ndence.

u u ‘ ” I 4_QnvvVco11side1’atio;n. of the evidence on record, the Trilaunai

I that the claimant had. sustained ‘fight black eye,

V’ abrasion over the occipital region and swelling over right wrist

” joint and in the right side of the face’. These injmies weee

found from the Wound Certificate Ex.P.6. The Wound

Certificate also made mfcxence to the C.’I’.Sca11 which disclosed

{EV

MFA 10494.06
3

that the claimant hazi sustained ftaetuxe of right and

maxiila.

5. The claimant examined the doctor .. u it the

Disability Certificate. Though lite j, fin >

Annapoorneshwaii Hospital from (}’?i;~1A£5′.’E’.(){)2 12020.0′: ea

an inpatient far 5 days he exainizie whe
treated hire. A_ exaiiihiineivvv 1′-‘W~2 who
assessed the disability PW~2 in his
evidence states} 10°/o disability
coxnyared ‘

6. the evidence of PW»-2 01:1,
the not the doctor who fieated the

claimant. ~.It “has. pmceeded to award compensation under

* ciiiffezegit heads £i£~’i’%fiCI’:

_ pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/~

114′,’

e 11; loss of amenitieas Rs. 10,000] —
, etowaxds medical expenses,
W. extra nouxishment,

conveyance and attendance
charges Rs. 10,000] ~

iv) towards loss of income during
treatment period 8:. loss of
future income Rs. 6,000/-

Total Rs. 46,000/~

MFA 10494.06
4

In all a sum of Rs.46,000/— is awarded. as oou1pe1;ts,si;ie::1_V’for

the permanent disability, the pain and _

consequential loss suffered. Aggrieved by .V

compensation awanded, the
seeking enhancement. A t t t A t t

7. I have heard learned counse§.V’ furVVt11e perused

the evidence on record.’ ~

8. The ‘igeiefipfinsafion under
the head ittesultant loss of future
Pmkash. He is an ENT
Speciaiist –_ .. ‘Snrgeon working at Victoria
Hospital, stated that on 23.93.2006. he

exatnined. the and assessed the disability sustained

uevtuto fracttme of Zygomatxix Arch. In his ogimlon,

‘t1:_Le5r[¢_3 [was {deformity in the tight face anci tenderness

thickening of zygomatic axes. The doctor further

“‘states..ti1e:Lt the claimant had difliculty to open the mouth full

t and faced difficulty in chewing and also in articulating. He has

assessed disabiiity in respect of different impairments as

spoken to by him. He has made a total assessment of

disability at 10%» compared to the whole body.

We

MFA 10494.06
5

9. Though the assessment of the disability by the is

not scientific as the percentage of disability of

difierent impairments is not spoken to by

said that his evidence deserved 3

Though this doctor has not_.1:reateti~– the 1 he is L’

speciaiist Working in Victoria the

evidence of the ~.._t}:1e suflered,
nature of the treatment of the doeter,
the permanent claimant can be
assessed As the eiaimant is facing
difficulty ” and ciifieulty in chewing,
it cannot be nfi’ect his normal activities and

his earning iTx}:iexfit5i{oIe, assessment of disability at 5%

_ A 1fe3isonai31y=»zn_n;ie in the instant case.

10.” of the injured claimant is taken at

1 is no evidence to show that the claimant

was any definite income. In the absence of any

i V’ evidence in this regard, the Tribunai was right and

— in taking Rs.3,00{}/~ as monthly income. Therefoie,

T ~ npplyring the niultipiier of 16 having regard to the age of the

B/.

MFA 10494.06
5

claimant found to be 28 yeaxs if the loss of futme is

calculated, the same Wiii come to Rs.28,800/ ». t

11. The Tribunal has awarded 12s;2o.oau;, tow’-ée%’d$ 1

pain and sufiering. In my :’kt’:epin:g’*_~’ the
sexiousness of the in.juIies,”‘–vt.:£fe,mpei3.satiun sum 5:’

Rs.25,000/ ~ deserves tape awéifcieéij Ifiider thtisvheétti.

12. As zegaxdg loss of has awarded
only a suBfi_VC”=_f to be enhanced to
Rs. 15,0()0_~_ tiixe and deprivation of
enjayzveeetv tdf _ is bmmd experience due

to the the Iesultaut disability.

13,.§A ‘in. so vvthei medical expenses awalded in a sum of

13.0 interference is called for.

Less of income damn’ g the txeatlnent period,

the has awarded only Rs.6,000/ –. The claimant must

A f_” taken treatment and rest at least for a period of three

‘months having negard to the fractural injuries sufiereci.

V “Hence, a sum of Rs.9,0G(}/ — deserves to be awarded under this

head.

We

MFA 10494.06
7

15. In the msult, the appeal is allowed in part. _’

compensation to which the claimant is entitled

and fixed at Rs.87,800/-. The claimant is e11’iii;l::§§*.f::ji*:::i13;t;;:1r=;f:?§t’VV

at 6% pa. on the enhanced amoulii; {if

till the date of payment. T}c1e4__.en}1;éi.*;.h¢itr1 %,

deposited within a period of éigfisj tfge date of

receipt of a copy of this ji;’cEgme:i:§t.:_