High Court Karnataka High Court

P Pullaiah vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 28 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
P Pullaiah vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 28 October, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 28"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD  

_MI§QELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 123220:/2007  '
EI_vy_r..:_;N   ._ I

P PULLAIAH

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

S/O ZACARAIAH  _   

R/AT NO 0.4 ALL INDIA RADIO-CO.MPLEX._ A 1
YELAHANKA UPANAGAR  _  A 0- 
BANGALORE-47.      APP.EL.LANT

(IIY R'IA.E..:E3vHE3:fgjAE§A: AMSHASATHRIAV, ADV.)

AN

THE ORIENTAEINSURANCE CO LTD
0,0 VII SHAN KAR HOUSE

 ~4'RI»~:vv EXTENSION

A f».[vIE_KRI CIRCLE

 "  BA._N'G.ALOER_Ej-.:8O

~. 'av I"FS'_'»MAN'AGER

5..

A . 2. ANANTHA RAMU

S/O [; RAMAIAH MAJOR

 A :..NO'1271 1ST MAIN ROAD

. _ GANDHINAGAR YELAHANKA
'BANGALORE-64  RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADV. FOR R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT
ORDER DT.O3.11.2008)

-17-
A

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 30.4.2007 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 5209/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, …|V’VE~-ACT,

METROPOLITIAN AREA, BANGALORE, (sCCii.CNio;e)V
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION’
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCE-&(i.Ei\lT~ I Or.j_

COMPENSATION.

MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL FIEAGRIVNG, te.:’s~.o.AY

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWENGIW
___w: u o e -r

The award dated 3o;o4i.2¢e7 ..i/L:FiC’?-[‘?_i\Llv’CI’._.5209/2006 On

the file of the§.M’o[tor AC_ciden.tsi4C’la’i’_rnVsV’Triouna|, Bangalore

SCCH “:.No:6 by the Claimant seeking

enhancement. _ V’ _ V’

“HeardIS”ri’.AShripad V Shastri, iearned Counsei

appeiiant and Sri.O.Mahesh, learned

<:oCun__seiV__v~appearing for the respondent i\io.1–Insurance

V"'fjOmpan.y".

H 3. Not in dispute is the fact that the petitioner

‘”gm’P.Pu|iaiah, an empioyee in Prasara Bharathi was riding his

motor cycle bearing i\3o.KA–04–EB–4786 on Doubie Road,

u3_
Yeiahanka New Town, when the driver of the Car bearing

No.KA–G4–A/6693 in a rash and negligent manner dashed

against him and the claimant fell suffering injuriesiidfieiwe

alleged car driver was negligent and sought comi:_iensati.o_Vi5.;.V::_ _

4. The claim was resistedwwby the””resipon’de’nVts_a.if if

Learned Member of the Tribunal cognsideriingi».tiie:”‘ei)i’d:e.nce_if

lead by the claimant held that_:”:_ar dime: waisillrlespognslible

for the accident and has deterrn_li’n-ed the sum of
Rs.30,000/– is awarded”.togwal–rds_’paiinjalnidg sufferings and

Rs.30,000/~ is iiawardeu”-fQW’af.d$”A..Vi’.0$,5:’i”‘bf amenities,

Rs.73,3’4’7/4″toiiwvardisrelimlgbiirsernent of medical expenses,
RS.1G,OzCi0/l-«. towards~Vi_nici_d’enta| expenses and Rs.10,000/–

towards futlu’reV_”rned–ica*!_ expenses, in all Rs1,53,347/– with

“”~iinte%e:sti,.;~@ ~50/a p.’a.imm the date of claim petition till

,.i;iayfn’V1’eri:ti;._L”i7h”ea.claimant is dissatisfied.

‘-“.”The|earned counsel for the appellant would

contend”t.hat the loss of pay suffered by the claimant and

‘ ..falAso’wloss of amenities has been not correctly evaluated.

‘ would submit that amount of Rs.30,000/~ towards pain

suffering is also low. In this regard he submits that

Ev?”

the claimant had to undergo surgery and then had to take

post operation treatment for which purpose he had_4.a,v’a,i:le.d

leave of 7 ‘/2 months. He was getting.?_:saiaVry’–~.__j’o>f____”_

Rs.23,000/– and thus he is entitledgfor rein’1bt:–r:s_e,m’en’t,Vof,’ ‘

salary for the entire period. The oppzosed’by–..thce;_ré

learned counsel for the insura’nce_.com’p.aVny,
out that there is no evidence.j_l:”‘o.n’ recoard show that
claimant had suffered o,f’é–V_pay’ entire period
of 7 V2 months. ‘He claimant being
in service _a for medical

reimbu rse_me’nt”‘ari:.:;j_,V_ he _h’as’V’avai:|:ed same.

TheVC’on~te’ntio~ns,» so urged deserves due

credence aséit “,upA’t_oV’the appellant to show loss of pay

rn..o:ne_t.arya ggbenefitfor the period of 7 ‘/2 months. There

,_i._.s'”r;ou’evi’d_ence__o’n record. Under the circumstances, when

thlerewdis nolevidence to show that he had availed leave of 7

months, without pay in the absence of proof that he lost

for that period, he will not be entitled to loss of

“income. However, he wili be entitied to loss of salary of

Rs.23,000/- for one month as he had lost the benefit of

surrendering one month leiwe for encashment. Therefore,

he wili be entitled to loss of pay for one montthmat

Rs.23,000/~.

7. Towards pain and suffetr§ng,. the .;tritfb’u.n.aI’-iaas’:

awarded Rs.30,000/- but consid’e_rih.gt.’ thet.1cttAper;taus§ t”orV.

treatment, it needs marginal Vin’c.rea,se h.ence;.iVt”_:isxincreased
to Rs.35,000/-. It is*”e.s’tab’Iaishe.dfjthatfléthere”‘ris*”VEphysicai
impairment of the of tibia
and fibula. T1:7$0iAAi:;gti’_i. thara’Qa4a’a.rev4idef’n%:eVofdisability but the
percentage? The tribunal has
awarded'”Rs.é:Ov,V0ti:i§[% of future amenities
which appellant has to live with

such Aphysica’: disab*iiity_ for the rest of his life, the amount

ciorngevnsation “uri’ci’erV this head needs to be enhanced to

A~I::n’1j.the result, the award in question needs to

be on the heads referred to above and the

t”=-w__”-»award”isV__re–deterrnined as foliowsz

if rv_’_’.:’Afowards pain and suffering Rs.35,000/–

Towards loss of amenities Rs.40,000/–

Towards loss of pay during the
Period of treatment Rs.23,000/-

(sxb

_{j..

Reimbursement Rs.73,347/–

Towards incidental expense Rs. 10,000/*c_:

Future medical expenses Rs.10__,;1§)O[?~’.’jg: .

TOTAL _ ii

In ail, the appetlant is en?;it~E.ed tdv.Rs.1,9i3v:L3i-éii’,/.:,VV The

enhanced amount sheik carry__Rfi»vn_ter_est.'”ati_ ._6°/pf? to be

discharged in four week’s–.:é’T..

_____