EN THE HEGH coma? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BATES THXS THE gfi gay DF AUGUST, 28a8,x wfix
PRESEN?: b u"
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K:;5 M%wJa$§:H,f:-_
ANS ¢ M .' _.
THE HON'BLE MR. 3USTICE A.S,'PAcHHA§gRE' 1
MISCELLANEOSS FIRST APPEAL N$.l5G52Q§_gQ§§ fmv}
BETWEEN:
M. Rama Rae,
S/o. late R.Mylar Rae,
Ageé about 62 years{'»4 . w
R/at fio.5¢mfShifiam;ketana'{«u
AJHB Lay¢ut,"v:jayanaga:; _
Banga1or¢--560Vo§Q:,"%_*,'w.'- ... APPELLANT/S
{By M/3. S Lgsuresfi g B;§;Sripad, Advs.]
AND:
_1:"Zfié Gfiefiéal Insfigance Co. Ltd.,
2 'Rép, by its Manager,
A-.NQ.663;Kl"tf?;aor,
Imam Defénce Cclony,
Near B M.Sri. Circle,
-- 100 ft; Réad, Endiranagar,
V»,Bangaiore~56O O38.
V',2;"9.Palani,
'Sf0fi Perumal,
Major,
u '~~R/at No.1G3, Gopaiappa Buiiding,
G.M.?alya, Thippasandra,
Bangalore~560 G75. ... RESPONQENT/S
[By Sri. S.V.Hegde Mulkhaad, Adv. for R1.
R2 sd.§
This MFA is filed u/Sec. 1?3(1) of M.V. Act
1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 27.11y2003
passed 3&1 Mm: No.323/2001 CH1 the file Ci' the 18""
Addi. Judge 2; Member, MACTW4, Bangalore iscflfiwéi,
partly ailowing the claim petition for cempeasattofiu
and seeking enhancement of compensatien. "%"~ * '
This MFA Coming on for Order3}" this "day "
Pachhapure J., delivered tee followingrr
_J'_I~§.I**.ic';:;..'e""=i1."1..~_.EN'1Fl"
The claimant ha3~ filed 'thiaV appealy" seeking
enhancemeet of the coflpenaatien_ fer --the injuries
sustained in the motor vehieieVaccioent.
2. VThe_facte relevant for the purpose of this
appeal are as under; --
On 3aLo§;2od0 at aheat 11.30 a.m. the appellant
_waa §fioceedingl~Qn his Kinetic Honda bearingt reg.
l=Ne}KAlG2;if§?7é and at that time, the tempo bearing
reg? No}K§k$3§?5O came from the opeosite directien,
ll driven" ia' raah and negligent manner and hit the
--ffi$ޤellaatJ' Que to the impact, the appellant
'*aeataieed injuries. Thereafter, he was taken to the
l"a§owring Hospital and then to Victoria Hospital for
l" , treatment. He was also treated in the HOSMAT
Hospital, Bangalore. The aepeilant claims that he
has suffered fracture of left tibia"upper 1/3 and
»C\
lewet 1/3. fie also claims that he has Sustained
permanent dieability to an extent of 8%. ' "The
appellant is an Accountant Officer in ,thewiRfG}.
Gffice. In the circumstance, heau'élaimeet i
compensation of Rs.8,00,000-OO.i
3. The Tribunal .en, apexeéiatiefiitef }the_f;
material on record has awardefl total Ceepensation of
Rs.60,0QO~OQ and aggrie§ed.ty;the_aeme, the claimant
has sought the enhancegent ef the ebmeensation and
preferred thisJa@9eal:§
é.n We have Eeafa the learned counsel for the
appellant_ene'alaefreeeGneent No.1.
5,_ The peint that ariees for our conaiéeration
_'v.fw§e£§er the appellant is entitled
'.f¢: _ennencement of comgensation? If
Se, to what extent?
I
lrA;6. lks the respondents have not challenged the
:fineinq of rash and negligent driving, the eaid
ldfineing has attaineé the finality. Hence the only
‘””§uestien that is to be decided in this appeal is the
quantum of cempensation.
?. It is the contention of the leazned cognsel
for the appellant that he has suffered freetuie of
left tibiamupper 1X3 and lower lf3:mlu;fi=?fi9T~
compensation awarded for pain, sgfferie§S*afid mental ”
agony” and on other heads is :en .leQet;lsifie.”fia_§fiee
Tribunal awarded the compeveatioelae”folieWe{_: .
l x lgs. PS.
1. Pain and sufferinggq, fllltl_:j=, ll*é§,0oo-so
2. Medical I expenses, Wleenveyenee =5e_» 4§’QOQ_GO
and nourishment. *- ‘e V
3. Future _.tmefileal1«1yVexpenSeem”
[appellant fhae %tQ’2Qnde;ge’ one
4. Loss of_Selery.2 ‘ll%_ ,j 27,734~GO
{5}
Less 55 amenities. xl”*” 5,0ooma0
u iQeerred Rs.39,QQG~8Q towards medical expenses. The
uem,£elevant bills have been produced before the
Tribunal. Taking into consideration the natere of
the. fracture, disability” and the medical expensee:
incurred by” the appellant, we are of the oeinion
that the apeellant is entitlee. to the asditiefiii
enhancement on the following heads: l .
.~w._é t”ml*5as}. Es;
E. For pain and sufferings land “9 . _. Q.–..a_
mental agony. , ‘= ‘. »finl®;OG®~GG*
?or medical expenses ingested
during the treatment incieding _ 9
conveyance, nourishmeetm”fCeda. V”‘2O.OGG~GG
and attendant charges, _ ljv”%iw’*_
3. Towards future ;A mediceiafu”
expenses as he has to,uneeree V
one more ogetation} V h; l”f*x ‘”«’ 15:GGG~GO
PM.)
4. Towards less efiamenitiesleh Vs i0,0GG~OO
“*5e tees: xfl .”Wl 55,000~00
9. In the eipcumstences, we are of the opinion
Wthat the eomeensatien awarded by the Tribunal is em
ltheliQwe;*side and the appellant is entitled te an
adeitiensl sum ef Rs.SS,GGG–QQ with interest at 5%
-E3.&.
l’_hln the result, the appeal is allowed in yart.
lV_ The appellant is entitled to an additional sum of
u”RsiSB,GOG~GG with interest at 6% p.e. from the date
of the petition till the date ef payment.
Considering the fact that the appellant has retired
ad.
from service, he is entitled to withdraw the ampunt
of compensation awarded.
Ksm* Iud99f'-fi _ _ %M%AIfiaqé