High Court Karnataka High Court

Puttaswamy vs N B Suresh on 6 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Puttaswamy vs N B Suresh on 6 December, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE?---»j

DATED THIS THE 6"" DAY OF DECEMBER 2o_1.Q_"'«*_.'j .

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE S. :}iB1§:I J1;:VNAzI;fE;ia'--   " _ 

MISCELLANEOUS FIRSTAPPEAL No.2': 19/2010 _.«;MV).    

Between:

Puttaswamy,

S/0 Kalaiah, _e  e

Aged aboutétl years,__  '

R/0 Ye1iyurVi11age,~,   ,     
K0thaEhiH0b1i,_. , _    

Mandya Tq.        ..../Appellant.

(By SriM.Y.   _ 
And : A A

1 NB: Suresh,  "
 "Majp'r, 5/0 MAB. .B__as.uveg0wd,
A V  R/.;&y't.dd1. Civil Judge
(SR.Dn.)&MACT,Mandya,Hete.._  i   

This MFA" on  day, the Court
delivered the f.oiie'tv__irig:.';'-_ " j  W   .
This 'ap'peya1'is_ di--reeted..__agaii1st the judgment and award in

MVC Nests/'zoos t1tt'tec1"=t.i'2".2o09 en the file of the Additional

 &'Civii»»3~iudge' {_Sr.Dn'.')-Van__d__i\/EACT, i\/Iandya. The appeliant was the
 V eiairna1:t the Tribunai and the respondents were the owners

a_nd_the offending vehicle. There is no dispute as to

theeeeth-t-ehee:__ er the accident and the liabikity of the third

~V resptandentpQfilnsuraitee Company to pay compensation. The

5
5
5

xléi

appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement

compensation.

2. I have heard the learned Counse;’=:”for ;)a’r_tie¥s. * ”

3. Learned Counsel for the Vwoulidl. as
per the Doctor, who had had
suffered 40% permanent disabiilit-y lirnb. In his
evidence, the stated suffered 20%

injury to the taken 6% as permanent

disabilityhto the wltolé-~ Compensation has been awarded

accordinglyf’which xis_ ;;3rtos’:=,l$i’_.’etinadequate. It is argued that the

aecidertt had occurred in the year 2008. The claimant was earning

5_,jOQ_(V)/– per month. The Tribunal has taken his income

Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

towards l.oss of;.–2imenities. The compensation awarded towards loss

‘of income ‘du1’ing the treatment period is also on a lower side. The

fclailniant was hospitalised for it) days. The award of compensation

5
i

towards attendant, food, diet, nourishment, conveyance. etc. Va’re

also on a lower side. Learned Counsel for the appellant has

me through the evidence of the parties, the documents pi*oduced..b’yib

the appellant/claimant before the Tr’ibu11ai’ as”alsQ :;he.,atiip–;._gn¢’d7«’

judgment and award.

4. On the other hand,”learned”Co1.inse}'”appearing lor the
third respondenulnsuranee Compaiiyfvhiasv justify the

impugn ed judgment .artd_ a’_warcl._

5. Having’regard’:to._the”eontentions urged, the question for

consideration isuwhether the eonspeinsation awarded by the Tribunal

adeqtrate? …..

‘ Et from the evidence of the Doctor that the

elain:~ant’_had”vsu’ffer’ed~’ZiO% injury to the particular limb. Having

regard to”—the..,hnatti’1’e of injuries sustained by him, it is just and

to !.1ol’d that the claimant had suffered permanent

£5

disability to the whole body. The claimant has not producedV,’a1’ty

material t.o support the contention that he was earning ? 5.,()0Qy’–. ” .

month. The accident had occurred during the 3

Claimant was aged 38 years at the time of,t.he aceicleilt. Therei’or’e,Hit__ j

is just and proper to take his income-at ? per (l,a5i-

per month). Since he was aged 38 tiirine the atgciclent,
the multiplier applicable is entitled
for a total sum of 3 income. He is
also ent.itled for ‘pl ‘income during the laid
up it is just and
proper ” toxivarcls attendant, food, diet,

nourishment, Tc-onvveyanee,._etc«..,_The Tribunal ought to have awarded

..,comp_e’nsat.,ion,__t’owar’ds…l.oss of arnenities. It is just and proper to

15,000/~ under this head. The compensation

awarded towards’: injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses,

fiancl fut.ure’:.rnedical expenses are just. and reasonable. Thus, the

“-“cia.i_m’a_nt is entitled for the compensation as under:

(E
5
it

it

SING. Particulars Ainount
1 Towards loss of future earning capacity ?l ,05.,30QQ.0r’)
2 Towards pain and sufferings Q’ ,000§0(}
3 Towards loss of amenities :’l5,000.i00 .7 ‘
4 i _”‘it.3’,3()0.00

Towards loss of income during the laid up
period » i

5 Towards medical expenses 0 ‘~5,0€l{)..00.ct__w_’
6 Towards attendant charges, food, i.{},000..00,
nourishment and travelling expe_nses 0′ .V it
Towards future medical expenses” p T ,- ?; lii-..S,0(”)0′.00
Towards simple injuries ” 5, ? 6,000.00
TQTAL – Jm =<"'.i',§?0,800.00

7. The Tribunal has awaraefaasun1__t5~:”e simoo/– which has

to be deductedtironiithe ‘a£o_re’said._ainount,uand the balance of

compensationpagtableiltti l,03,400/~. The said sum

of ? l,03,éld0/~«.shaE–l at 6% per annum.

8. In ti:e”1’e.su1t,_ the ‘appeal succeeds and it is accordingly

aliowcdp i.n”part. T’i’re_t_hird respondent — ‘Insurance company is

i”__:dir;ec’ted {Q deposit sum of ? l,03,400/– with interest at 6% per

annumrrom ethetdate of the application till the date of deposit in

‘.Vaddition.to’ has been awarded by the Tribunal within a period

A ifiofxeiigli.tp weeks from the date of receipt of :1 copy of this order. The

i

s
i

3 E’.

appekiam is permitted E0 withdraw the amouni on such dep0sit. ‘NQ

COSIS.

BMM/–

J: 2