1 M.F.A.343/O'?{MV}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2309
BEFORE & 4' 3
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST 'V
BETWEEN: E 'I V' A
RAGHAVENDRA AC I%I.r.-Em'
S/0 NARAYANA ACHAR,._ -
ACED ABOUT 24
R/O. ULLURU,'HJ_JI'E_ANI, KANDAVARA,
KUNDAPURA TALUK,'1UDLIPI"D'IS'1'E1cT,
SINCE DISABLED -REE' BY HIS' I\I;Ex_'I* FRIEND,
GUARD1AN--BR.O"1'HE'R \7.._"S_I_} ACHAR
S/0 1§lARAYAN;«?\AC}~IAR. *
~. A _ _V jj; . I .APPEI..LANT
[By Sri ADV.)
I. SHAMIM S/CIAED-I.IL GUPUR,
_ AGED ABOUT 32 "::'EARS,
" NAGARA, DCDDMANE GUDDE,
' .....
' _ INDIA ASSURANCE Co. LTD..
FLOOR, SR1 RAM ARCADE,
OPPQ POST OFFICE UDUPI,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
RESPONDENTSSri R. RAJAGOLPAL ADV. FOR R2)
M.F.A.343/O7{MV}
THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED U/8.173(1) or’ ACT
AGA1NsT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARE) DATED 23,/as/2006
PASSED IN MVC No.94/04 oN THE FILE OFf’}H_l’:3_C’.IVIL
JUDGEXSD} & MACT, KUNDAPURA, PART1;Y”«.4lLL:{}V?;.fIPJG
THE CLAIM PETITEON FOR coMPENsAT1oN..’_AND.VsEEK_i_NG
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
This appeal coming on fonheanng i-hi.s..’da.y;”the eoiirt
delivered the following:
JUDGfiENTxdd
This is a c1airnant’_s _fo1* enhancement of
compensation. 1
2. Kiranshetty, learned
counse’1’foi; agopalan, learned counsel
for
pg; records and medical evidence,
had staffs-ieed following injuries;
~ .V2,’.<'2 cm Superficial abrasion over lateral
'aspect of elbow;
2X1 cm laceration over middle 1/3″ of
Right leg;
5X1 cm laceration over the chin;
Closed head injuly with right basifrontal
contusion.
/1
{i:}?i’:,
‘=£iv)
i
4’
T\:
,2′
xg
‘ L ..,–«.
u
at
3 M.F.A.343/07(MV)
4. The claimant was treated in Kasturba Hospital at
Manipal. The Discharge summary would reveal th{at_at the
time of discharge, claimant was conscious, with
GCS 15/15 and no cranial nerve palsy;
afebrile. Motor power 5/5 in all ,foi”ir’lirnp_bl.s. .g b.
5. The disability certi_f_icate’cia’ted o2;£:»;?.12oo5i’;i$suéd,
by the Kasturba Hospital reveal-. claimant was
advised to take anti-;:convu_lsants’liVe years: There was
gross deterioration of inteI.lect’uaf1 f1.-1r1ction_s’–;
6. hasij compensation of
Rs.’f’..7A,5()(‘J/.–v.as’:’:Tlie.r,l’lear:3ed’ counsel for claimant would
submit accident, claimant is mentally
tlneretforeti the tribunal should have awarded
, ‘compensation towards loss of earningecapacity and future
._ loss of
.. It is noticed from records that the claim petition
filed by claimant. In the claim petition, it is not stated
c¢,§
4 M.F.A.343/07(MV}
that claimant suffers from mental impaimient. The brother
of claimant was examined as PW–1 on the grorifnd that
claimant was not in a position to give evidence’ b’ei:4″o1V:e”i«the
Tribunal.
8. It is noticed from recovr-ds’ that ‘after insirraiiceb f it
com an de osited amount in terms A’ of imnudned__”awnard,
P _ _ ‘y .3 ._ _
claimant has received a cheqtre~.for conduct
of claimant is inconsistent ‘the”~eyidencevvof If the
claimant is menta113f'”‘;VL:;d’~4h1_.-p,fi;1_’_e§”c..i€} petition should
have been filed’b__y hislllnext; «iggiiardian. If claimant
is mentally ctnderstandable as to how he
had l'{s.30,459/– from the tribunal.
Considering all” I hold that claimant is not
s,ut’fe1’i’ineg from._.mental impairment. Therefore, there is no
.’ ‘ compensation under the head ‘loss of earning
._ ar1cl”j”uture loss of earnings”.
h’ is seen from the impugned award that tribunal
l ” has awarded compensation of Rs.17,00()/~ towards injury,
2
Qsaiis
N «L
_ _ 5 M.F.A.343/07{MV}
pain and suffering, considering nature of injuries, the same
is enhanced to Rs.25,000/–. Thus, claimant is ezititled to
totai compensation of Rs.85,500/ — i
10. In the resuit, I pass the f01Iowing:–‘”A«’.._:” . V” t
(i) The appeai is VE1CC€:1:)A:1.13__C1i:iIV?t.pa1″t..h’., ‘A-. , i, it
(ii) The impugnedttaxztfard is Ifmtiifievd.
(iii) compefi5;>.t1ofi of 500/~ awarded
by the to
e 6% pa.
the date of
:;rfealiSSitid;.1. H
(iv) TheVV.p4f~,13IIIie’nt ahd,.i.fivestment shall be in
X the rat’i0_:ev’oIVed”in«the impugned award.
(V) P;éii’fies.are directed to bear their costs.
Sd/4-E
Judge