IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY 015' AUGUST, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENIvAsEvG(§WDA
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 9275 of
Between
Ramamurthy
S/0. Narasaiah A .
Hindu, now aged 23"y.ears
R/at No.9, Shivanaxlcléainagar A
Bangalore - 560 079. _
A A " ' a ... Appellant
{By SI-LAK Raj ._
A
" S/ Q. Madaihyappa
" ._Hi;1c'iu Major
"i'O:..._?h0remudalapaIya
Mahadevapura Post, Nelamangala Taiuk
Bangalore Rural District.
f_ Branch Manager
Bajaj Aflianz Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
N0.105A/107A, Cears Plaza ,
No.136, Residence Road.
Bangaiore -- 25.
New address at:
T D R Complex
New Mission Road,
Near Poornima Theatre,
3:'
Bangalore -- 560 002.
Respondents
[By Srnt. H R Renuka, Adv. for R2,
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MvfjAc:r;av.:igé::1istH”
the judgement and award datedml3.05;20’O8gpassed._iri
MVC No.5892/2007 on the X”fiie”of 714tl1V_”Additional
Judge, Court of Small Caluseis;«’l\/iembei’, V’
Bangalore City, SCCH«~10,_ part1y”.a1loWin;g’A”the v.4(;1air’r1-..p
petition for Compensation and seeking enhancement of. ‘
compensation.
This appeal fj”caring,VlthiVS day, the
Court, delivered the f’ollowing–: ‘} ”
Dip,
enhancernent’ corn pensation.
2. Forvthe sa1_<e'.of'conVenience parties are referred to
are referred to in the claim petition before the
' p'vVrr;bug:ia1ir§ :0
facts of the case are:
l”I.”hat. on 02.08.2007 when the claimant was
= {Valking on Shivagange–Dabuspete road near
Gourapurada Muthaiah’s land an autorickshaw bearing
No. KA 52 2224 came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against him, as a result he sustained
1n3uries. Hence he filed a claim petition ,
Bangalore seeking compensation of
Tribunal by the impugned jtidgrnent,
awarded a compensation of RsA.:8__I/~ igwitliviiiterestllatg
6% pa
4. As there is regarding occurrence of
accident, negligence’ the Insurance
Company’. my consideration
in the ._ . V
it i. the quantum of
compensa.ti0n»-awarded by the Tribunal is
__ just» Vandf. proper or does it call for
V reduction?
‘ — rehearing the learned Counsel for the parties
the award of the Tribunal, I am of the
View ‘that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
“onjfthe lower side and it is deserved to be enhanced.
$3
6. As per wound certificate Ex. P 3 claimant
sustained fracture of both bones of left leg. The injuries
are also supported by discharge summary
Outpatient record EX. P 8, X–ray Ex. P 9
sheet Ex. P 10 and supported”by*-«Oral t1~1éV
claimant and the doctor’ ‘lasll’P..WS «.1 ”
respectively. He was..:’n:.n:”‘treated.. ‘has innatielnt in
Tumkur Govt. H0$Pi_tm I. 12».-‘8,_v2O(fi)’7VV”t0″V§7.8.2007.
Dr. B. Ramesh has assessed
disability -iof lower limb and
7. C–o’nsiderin:g “nature of injuries Rs.40,000/-
awarded__bj,zf towards pain and suffering is
pro’per___and it does not call for enhancement.
iVRs:..5,0O0/– awarded by the Tribunal towards
‘1ned§;cai.7~” expenses is based on the medical bills
.. Vprociulced by the claimant, there is no scope for
if “‘er;1hancement under this head.
@’
9. Considering nature of injuries and duration of
treatment Rs.4.000/– awarded by the Tribunal towards
conveyance and nourishment is just and prc1p’er”p:’ar1d it
does not call for enhancement.
10. The Tribunal has assessedlthle..’in.corr1’é:~.te,_of’rthe °
clairnant at Rs.3,OOO/–Vp.’rn. arVid..lV2:3,OOG[–i’
towards loss of income which is
just and proper and does cal}:f’o«r_enhancement.
11. Considering by the doctor
and an unhappiness he has
to Rs.20,000/– awarded by
the of amenities is just and
proper andit’ doestnot call for enhancement.
claims to be a coolie and the
it stated by the doctor at 40% to left lower limb
aridto the whole body definitely affects his future
A. , earning to certain extent. He is aged about 22 years,
i “the multiplier applicable to his age group is 18. If so,
Er
{umre loss of income works out to Rs.90,720/~
{Rs.3,000/~ X 14% X 12 X 18) and it is awarded.
13. Accordingly the appeal is allowed
judgment and award of the Triifgtlnal is the .
extent. stated herein above. The c1airhan.t ‘i~s_”entitled¥1,for
{:11-‘3 additional compensation of it with’
interest at 6% p.In. from the_da_te ofieiairnflgietition till
1′:h<-3 date of realisation j –
14. The Tfiwijifilal ;dirc:Lc’ted”‘thVe:-V’Insrarance Company to
pay the “by it with a liberty to
:~c=<=.o:a_}er of the offending vehicle. In so
IE–ll' as ' the e'1i.1fia:tice_d-«atiofnpensation is considered the
ow;;e3"_ of'4'VthVe"o'ffending Vehicle is directed to pay it
. interest within two months from the date
I :V”i~vi.si.on -fiench of this Court in MFA No. 8126/2002
..<'jon1"ie(:ted with MFA 7892-93/2002 disposed of on
it :.::o.~o 1 .2009.
%’
’15. The compensation is directed to be released in
llwour of the claimant.
No order as to costs.
Vb / «