IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
DHARWAD.
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010' T' -A.
PRESENT 1 Cja KCC
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE3 I:;L»;r.rLANJ'utT1§i_g§;T1TaT'C'
AND I V ' 1' C
THE HON'BLE MR. JUs1:TcLE..ARAVnV§_DV
Miscellaneous Fixfst AD3:)ea.1RNo. 6093 cf 2004.;
Between :
-:
Parasaram
S/0. Sabannefi ll
Aged abou=L"25«.yea;fi-g,V _ '
Occ. Maison, i1_c$w Nil,' T_ 7
R/0. A.mb.igergalI'i,i:;, '~
Halepeth, ,
Bagalkot 'Dist.ric't;:' -~ ._ ll
" l Appellant
(By Sri. Sl1_.afa_d Nlageduzfdefor Shankar Rangareji
82; Ravindra "1V[_eh'a.rwade Advs.)
" ;§
~Sl/Q,«Bh«i1'_nap'pa' Rarndurg,
Age. Majorg. '
Occ. Business,
R/o. 'Choudapur,
~'I'q,_ Mudhol,
[)_ist,« Bagalkot.
l(%R~1 is the driver, not a necessary party. Hence deleted)
2. The Divisional Manager
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Belgaurn. ,
..x.....Responfde'n ts
(BY Sri. Rajesh for CM. Poonacha for R-2) " = *
(R--1-- served)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal js"'filed under .1 v'7;;5V{V1) of T.
MV Act against the judgment and award dtd.fO7=,fO7,/ l20O47pAa's7sed
in MVC No. 14/2003 on the file of the VPrl.7Civil {'Sr.*Dn.) 85
J.M.F.C., and Member, MAC'l'~II.,' -Bagalkotg partly' gallowing the
claim petition for compensation and seeki.ng'V..e_r.ghancement of
compensation. " A 7
This appeal coming on for "day, Kumar,
J., delivered the following: ~ " - V . is
11
The questioning the correctness
and by "the MACT, Bagalkot in MVC.
No. 14/2003 d'td."ov7/o'7/2.904}--..,.ll'lV
. &_ 2. he hriefV'factsV"iea--ai1ig to file this appeal are as follows;
.clairnant. travelling on a motor bike bearing Reg. No.
KA~29l'/'3l5'F6--I~.il l,l.a1'2'i/1O/ 2002 towards Bilagi and at Anadinni
vifcross a truck bearing No. KA--22/ 6482 dashed against the claimant
4. .frorri'hiridside and as such and on account of the said impact, the
V'>Vfic1airnant issaid to have sustained grievous injuries, which resulted
'<l.theZ"'claimant lodging claim petition in MVC. No. 14/2003
claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the
above said accident. The respondent No.2 though was repijesented
before the Tribunal did not chose to file the ;_olt’~.
objections. However, the respondent No.3,_.~th.e’f.aIln–si.1ranc’e
Company had filed its written statement landgdeniedb
made in the petition.
3. On the basis of the rivalg.-plea-.adVance’d,-_thel Tribunal
framed the following issues fordetei**i1iiili?i.ationi
1. Whether the _petitioner”praL’es>.t’hat,.lIorilll I 0/ 2002
at about vw»as””proceeding on
motor on Bagalkot Bilagi
road the limits of the
Kaladagi vehicle No. KA.22/ 6482
driven respondent__l:gNd..1 came from behind the
motor cgclelin_highv_sp’eed and in rash and negligent
and’clas__he~d to the motor cycle resulting in
1 2 , toahim, the petitioner?
llt’he.:~~respondent No.3 proves that the driver
l ‘ Tata;:%l_0’l7’ vehicle had no valid and efiective driving
V llirgensehvat the time of the alleged accident?
Whether the respondent No.3 proves that the
* petitioner himself was rash and negligent?
l4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
l
{f yes, in what sum and from whom?
5. What order or award/ decree?
4. The claimant has got himself examined as P.W..~~1. tflso
examined Dr. Sanjeev Kalasoor as P.W.2 to substan_t’iat,e cIa,i”r1–1..:_« V’
made in the claim statement and got mar;1′<ed»'docLirI1ents_.VatVEat'?-1".
to 11. The respondents did not choose to exzafnine any wivtness nor
got marked any documents. The Tridbuunal on c'ons'id_verati.onVVVof the
evidence placed before it, h.as~.._awa'rd'eds–:'a total com'pe'nsation of
Rs.88,000/ — under various heads-R,'wh'ich?reads.AAas1'fo11ows–
Towards the pain..an§rd Rs. 20,000/–
Towards the loss RS, 10,000/,
Towards theidiet Rs. 3,000 /-
Towards the 1ossLofearntnu§,s the treatment. Rs. 3,000 / —
Towards t1jaVe11inéuex§_3ensesD’ T. Rs. 2,000/-
T hhhhh ” Rs. 20,000/–
Rs. 30,000 / —
5. The claimant is seeking enhancement of the said
compensation not being satisfied with what the Tribunal has
awarded .
6. We have heard Sri. Sharad Magadum, learned”:co-tinsel.
appearing for N. Shankar Rangareji for appellant it
learned counsel appearing for respondent Pilo.2i.ii’4p’llho1;1gl§,p
respondent No.1 is served, is unrepresented. is
7. Having heard the learned counsel for iparitieis aiigdiwhaving
considered the evidence placedby theiclaimaiitbeforeiithe’Tribunal
and scrutiny of Trial Court records,’the?’po.i_n*t.x_’thia_t arises for our
considerationivin is iasiunderzw V
“Whether thevgeoiii1g_aehsatio’n awarded by the MACT
is just anici=._Vreasor_taiblehand if not, does it require
enhrthcement ahdif so? to what extent?”
facts are that, claimant on 12 / 10/ 2002
T’ v.__iii”\”riv*l;ile proceeding Bilagi on motor cycle met with an accident viz.,
bevarting Reg. No. §<.A–22/6482 driven in a negligent
dashed from back against the vehicle of claimant, which
7re'sul_ted in injuries being sustained by the claimant and
(W,
immediately thereaftervvards he was shifted to the District Hospital
and on being given the first aid treatment was shiftcd'r._to
Vivekananda Hospital, I-Iubli, on the advise of the Doctors
unconscious state due to the head injury. The an'
inpatient at Vivekananda Hospital ihfromplp j.
28/10/2002. The Tribunal on con'siderati'onl"of fjtti 5"gh'asV"g
arrived at a conclusion that the accide'n'_ti'in_ quelstion' haslzioccurred
on account of the rash andA..4_neg1igl;Aen:ttAvdrivingpof the truck and
proceeded to assess the quantum of on the basis of
the medical evidence 15;! theclaiinanit;
9. We on record, perused
exhibits marked ‘which:’:-gitiaslvl’produced by the claimant viz., the
medical prescriptions; V. reports, disability certificate,
wound certificate evidence of Dr. Sanjeev Kalasoor,
vvho P.W.2 in extenso. It is seen from Ex.P~9,
which~.Ali’h_tal” Report (Plain Study) carried out on
1V2»/V 10/ {the date of accident, that following injuries were
*on._the ‘body of the claimant.
Posteriorfossa structure are normal.
._f9 l7Sérial axial sectiona of brain obtained with out IV contrast.
0 Evidence of multiple contusions noted in right cerebral
hemisphere 8:; left temporal lobe with diffuse cerebral edema
in right cerebral hemisphere.
a Right lateral ventricle is effaced with mid line shift _
o Focal subarachnoid hemorrhagic noted
fissure. I V
a Small bleed noted in left temperal horn. A it
o Sellar, parasellar region are normal. it _
a Evidence of linear fracture of leftVi’terriperallb’o.n:enoted.
Impression: l_ Q ., it
* Diffuse cerebral edema bleed in right
cerebral hemispherevffi left:temp:eral– subarachnoid
hemorrhage in fissiire .85 ‘left. ternperal horn bleed.
* Linear fracture “left tempe.frall”b.or:ge§”.1 ‘
10. the course of treatment P.W.2
Doctor has staltedgii tvhat.he’._fo=.1;r1d cerebral edema, on account of
which avféseciondg scan’nin__g___had to be done and as such second
and the said report has been produced
Ill”evcollectisrely an<l1i'i."ggot:=h"Ir1arked as Ex.P–9. The said certificate dtd.
tel/10/2oQ.2""vmads as follows;
it iifilaemorrhagic shear at gray–white junction in the right
__ f°ronto–temporo–parietal region have become more obvious
Hlwith increased surrounding edema.
0 Thin subdural bleed seen in the right temporal and
fronto-parietaregion.
o Haemorrhagic contusions seen in the left frontalllafi-i.,. :_.
temporal region show mild increase in su_r_rou.nd_ing<
edema.
o Extra~dural haematoma seen the posterior foss.a.lA.in thei
mild line. ” ‘” ” ”
o Signs of diffuse cerebraledemafselen,
c There is mild shift of midliries the left.
a Longitudinal fracture in volviiig temporal
bone extending “cavity.
0 Linear irs;1golving._:Vtl1e«..left,isquamous temporal
bone.
11. S’ub.seq1i.ientu1y’é1fteVr discharge the MRI Brain Screening
1§la_siVbeen” 19V€ll)ll3/T2004 and the findings of the said
screening reads.. as follows-
0 T?”-weigvhtedimages reveal ill defined hyperintense areas
involving; the right fronto–temporo–parietal and left
A temporal regions. These appear hypointense on T1
weighted images and represent encephalomalacic areas.
0 Rest of the brain parenchyma shows normal signal
intensity. ”
0 There is no evidence of intracranial haemorrhage.
I Lateral ventricles are mildly dilated.
0 No midline shift is seen.
u Both 7*” — 8″‘ nerve complexes appearinolavnial.
o Craniovertebral junction is
0 Orbits and calvarium are~Llnrenlarital;le1’»
o Encephalomalacic areas’ right fronta-
temporo–parietal__ and ‘left ll
12. treated claimant and
examined 19/O3/2004 has issued
a Certificate laz;;,»,.’, the=.lZ§ilsahil1iy”‘Certificate, which is at Ex.P~11,
concluding’ theeretirider’rthatl-the: physical disability of the claimant
:i=s_vto”thVe’ dmjso,/0 the claimant would not be in a position
to as the injury has caused in claimant getting
liwgiddiness_ q_ui~tej..– often which is called as “Alaxia”. These
it'”:3’ldoci1rnentary__lmedical evidence has been reiterated in the oral
evidence the Doctor and though a feeble attempt has been made
ll the cross–examination to disprove that the disability was not to
a/
10
the extent of 75%, no admission has been extracted to disprove
this fact of 75% disability having been suffered by claimant.
Hence, we are of the considered opinion that Docto.r~~«eviden’ce”
placed before the Tribunal entirely supports the the
appellant that the Tribunal committed; a error’–.isnV:l’noytfi’
considering the appellants claim for loss ift1t1.Er6y:e§’1I7l.;1lf1l3S.l3’4ilifilli
these circumstances, we are of the that
by the Tribunal requires to reappreciation of
evidence. at T V V ii at
13. Admittedly; cerebral edema
and on account of disability to the entire
body to an extent 1j,.’1o”lspitalisation, taking of the
medicines as presc.ribedlby.lth_e’ ibglcctor P.W.2, not being in dispute,
the,Vamountgtovvards llimvedvicalpiexpenses awarded by the Tribunal
alsorequires a__ relook. As such considering the nature of
7″».xinjuIy,l’ days of hospitalisation, the treatment
Vobtained duririgtiie course of hospital thereafterwards and also
the Doctor to have future medical treatment is to be
note of by us and the compensation requires to be awarded.
(ll)nll_pe1’usal of the evidence of the Doctor (P.V\/.2) it is found that
fif
ll
doctor has opined that on clinical examination of claimant it was
found that he was suffering from “Alaxia” (suffering from givddiness
while walking) which in effect mean that claimant w’ill’L1’1l(isii:fferir1é» if Rs. 30,000 /_
Towards7n1edical’ ie;tpe’nses.ppiil”-,V__ . _’ Rs. 60,000 / ~
Towards pg xrluring the
hospitalisati’on,i food and nourishment, diet
and travelling expenses. Rs. 30,000 / —
.A .far..Vas loss of future earning, the Tribunal has
procee-ded_ton’aii._e1″roneous footing and come to a conclusion that
the claiIriantv–..’:is’vnlot completely incapable ‘of doing any work in
._’0n”eican1ination of Doctor’s evidence, we find that the
categorically opined the disability to the whole body is
T “He has also stated that the claimant would be unable to do
12
any heavy work. Keeping this evidence in the background and the
nature of work, the claimant was carrying on, viz., being a_ mason
he would be unable to do any other work than the avoc’ati’onV—he. _
conversant with. As such the Tribunal was in error’ in ..coming.to
conclusion that claimant was not prevented .fI’QI§;1 idoingangi
work. Taking this aspect into consideration, we that during
the relevant period viz., during 2OO2ViVi4i’a_xrnason” drawing
atleast Rs. 100/ — per day, and the
annual income would be Rs.3€2_;Q:iC_)O/ as opined by
the Doctor being of future income
to the claimant p.a. According to the
medical Tribunal, we find that
the age of the”‘injured and as held in Sarala Verma’s
case, the relevant would be applicable being 17, the
f’utui’e&incioim’e”wou1d be Rs.-4,59,000/– (27,000 X 17).
Thtis,theVc1aimant.._would be entitled for a total compensation of
Rs. 5,79»,.§C)0 under the following heads;
1′.’:=’l’owardsiithe pain and suffering Rs. 30,000 /~
. Towards” medical expenses including future Rs. 60,000/~
V’ .__ ‘ ‘ ‘ medical expenses
’13
3. Towards food and nourishment, diet etc. Rs. 30,000 / —
4. Towards loss of future earning Rs. 4,S9,0xOrQ:/ié._V
Total Rs. _
Thus, the claimant would be Zyentitleéi ._’a–. lsunfi
Rs.5,79,000/– together with future.int.erest 6°/o dateuof
petition till the date of deposit.
In View of the above, I passtiie _
(i) The ‘in M
(ii) jrhé’co§%..p¢f{§Tg:;t:ofziir§.s’ awarded by the Tribunal is
— to a sum of
__Rs.t3,”?9.’00t)g{–Aipaylalble by the 2’14 respondent
it .{nsuranoel”Cc–mpany to the claimant together with
l from date of petition till the entire
3 paid.
(iiijl ~. the said amount (Rs. 5, 79, 000/ –), a sum of
it 53,68,250/– shall be kept in fixed deposit in
any Nationalised Bank for a period of 5 years
@/.
14
and balance amount shall be released in favour
of claimant.
(iv) The claimant would be entitled to draw ;. b
monthly interest on the above said 4.
amount.
No order as to costs.
hnm/–