. ; - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE IBATED THIS THE 1973 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUS'FICE SUBHASH 3.5.1:): BETWEEN: Rahul Shetty Aged about 3 years I ' S10. 8. M. Jagwecsh R] at. Sondekoppa, Dasanpura hobli Bangalore North Taluk " .V Bangakmc Di:-ntrixzt. Since minor Rep. by his __ a Natural Guardian S.M. Jaga:l,_ccsh" " j " Sfo. Munivenkata Shetty. _ _ .. APPELLANT (ByS1i.Ka1yanR.,Adv.) V & AND: 1.
B. S. Mahesh
S/0. R.
Agsrxbathi .
% V» – . V-~”
.. izidia As.sm’anoe Co. Ltd.
‘- R’/.0. No.T2+.B’?:Unity Building annex
P, Kaiingajfiao Road,
. . . RESPGNDENTS
‘S1:i,’_ B. C.. Sectha Rama Rae, Adv. for R2)
This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
VT VM;’V’.Act against the judgxncnt and award dated 21.073200′?
passed in MVC N05038/’.3006 on the file ofthac XIV Add}. Judge,
‘Court of Small Causes, Member, MACI’, Mott-oyofitsza area,
Bangakrrc, {SCCH. No.10), partly allowing the claim petition for
cump<~:msa.liuz1 and acekiug enhancement of oompccusuiion.
-3-
This Appeal coming on for Admission this day. the Court
delivered the folbwizag:
JUDGHBET
This is an appea}. by the c1a1man’ t rm ‘4
compensation.
2. 013. 8.6.2006, a ilhflated
walkxn’ g on the Iefi side of the V
tempo trax beefing No.KA5G6[A-396E§..i§;*i§?&211.in .; and
rash and negligent ‘against him, as a
result of which, was shifted to
hospital where A ” ‘V
3. of Rs.2.50.000I- and in
support of Ex.P2 -~ wound 06111568. in,
which =a_ iar*ea”a,_ 8 X ‘2’ cm muscle deep over
fight right knee snrrournded injmy and
iaeeraltfisn t;s§_er:.fi9:e’b.ack 3 x 1 cm.
to the medical expenditure, he had produced
fgr 1§s..*?S,?14l~ as per Ex.P6. The Doctor E emmined as
V Doctor has stated that, the claiflt has sufientd 20%
on the whole body. He has stated that, the c}am1an’ 1: is
to undergo one more surgery. which may mquize an
amount of Rs.25,0Dr(}-3{).00{}l –. Consiziezing the evidence of the
-3-
claimant and the doctor, the Tribunal has gsmted the foflqwing
coxnpcnsation:
Pain as agony Rs. 30.00€i}’;< 1. » A'
Medicalcxpcnscs Rs. 65,090/-5-AT.'V'L-""'
Conveyance & nourishment Rs. .
Loss of amenities '""Rs..' 1"¥§O,()()('1f.5
I"-'utum mcdical expenses Rs. 3 15,0£)(}[_«'
(do not curly interest) –'- —— –4+-»-L.-¢–v
TOTAL
-.’- 1.–… um…”-n–£’r.,-u.’a’.
5. Learned Cour1iaa’:1A_ “-._for the
submittgzd that, the doctor hgs :’Vt11_:.-.1:.tL; is disability of
20% on who}: the safl .
dimbifity to ” the loss of future
income. Ii towards has of
income even an the other heads, the
compensation is lower side.
., for the Insurance Company
are not severe injmics and they have
Gfiifif will not afibct his eamjng capacity and
” ‘g;~;fii*si1i¢n’n..g’v._fi}1e evidence. the Tribunal. has granted reasonable
“T7. PW–2 – doctor has stated that. the chhtnant has
V hfindetwent surgery and he has developed kcloyd i.c.. thickming of
the skin. He further stated that the: claimant is required to
.4-
undergo one more surgery. Looking into the injury. the clgimnant
though may not be entitled for future loss of irzcomeg
and agony and the amenities are concerned,
required to be properly compenaatedf;
found that there are scam, which and
these ugly scars will last till the 39.51:’ *
and eufiering and the scars ” vvizeatznent,
claimant Ieqliires 113211131′ I of the
opinion that, the towards
pain and sufiefing; claimant is entitled
for the bill loss of he
is entitied medical expenses. the
claimant instead of Rs.15.000/-;
towards attendénce ajjd charge, etc.. is oonmmed.
same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/—-. In
the entitled for Rs.2.05,714I- by way of
at 6% per annum on the enhanced
date of petition till payment.
“Wi.£h this modification. the appeal is partly auowd.
Sd/~
Iudge
KNM]-