High Court Karnataka High Court

Sadashiv Arjun Hall vs Ramesh K Jalal on 22 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sadashiv Arjun Hall vs Ramesh K Jalal on 22 April, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy Gowda
MFA 8952 / 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA czRc:t.:IfI_';'_:B1a::4«.I'fP;;\LA Gowm

BETWEEN:

Sadashiv    _ ._ 
Age: 9 years, Occ: T'S4:u,dez;3t, , " ._
Naturai M] Gv. (3f P'e{i'iioncf'--[._ ---- '
Sn'. Aijtm Gulappa Halli,"  .  " 
Age: 47 years, (§c:c:%'Scré&i._<:c:;. " A 
Ftfo Kambaagi, Tq: 15;; Dist. Bijagérur,
Now R] 0.,L¥&lsVa:I3A Wasti  V

(1133: s r1 mgjcnéira .r.§.':zesai, Adv.)

 AND?

_ 1. _Ramc:S;}1 K;.Jai.:=&',

 Age: majr~.=r;{)cc: Busineas,
" " q 0 343, 'E3' Station road,
 ' Shahapixri, Kolhapur,

 Matimnsua State.

  The }BraI1ch Manager,

'The United India Iilsurance Co. Ltd.,

A   "Shaka Shaka No. 1, Ganapati Krupa

First Floor 6 140/ A8 Shahayuri Gafli,
No.1, I{o1hapur-416 001,

(By Sri. R.V.Nadag:mda, Adv, for R523)

3

M"!§'_,A.1*1dV;89.i*i:f_.'. l.'2£'?j(3'? " %

. .APPELLANT

 RESPONDENTS

MFA 8952;2oo’7

perznanmatly defoxmed. A medical practiticner who ha{i _:t::§$a.ted the
appellant has opined that there is ?’0% pe1:’manen_t« the

right ieg.

04. it was in the above backgioufid tfaativ a’ WE1é ”

preferred befere the Motor Accide n_L2;a Tfih:.1i:a1
has awaréed a compensation of 1 – ‘f?his appeal is
fiied seeking cahancemefit the several heads of

OS. The fifintsnds that having regaxti t0

the nature; of agg of the appe:l1an.t at the time of
accident, the a sum of Rs.2{),C*0(}/ ~ towards

Pam a1:1n siower side and that the samf: would

.. .. . . . . . .. ‘ \

It that a sum of Rs.15,000/~ awarded towards

Z ‘*f12tureA u;1hap§ii§c$s is not adequate and masonabie ner does a sum

‘R$.10,00Q}~ awarded taowards 1033 of alfilfiliitififi czampensate the

the 1033 he suffers throughout his life.

‘O:’:?.”” ‘I’he Tzibunal having awaltied Rs.1,5C30/~ towards Conveyance

attendant charges, Rs.3,0{){‘)/~» towards medical expenses and

é

MP5 8’§}52f’.200′}’

U’:

10. On these facts and circumstances and the :iva1″e{3’ii{e:ii;i.0ns, in

our opinion, the award of compensation at Rs.12{},–i};(“§(),?-~.

and euzfifefing is izladequate, given the.-nature aiid::thev..agej« of

the appellant as well as the period fieafmeixi hae J

to undergo. In our opinion, is e21§ifle€I:..;t6″‘zm’:additi6na1

compensation of Rs.30,{)O§)/ — ‘head. if

11. The award of ‘ey under “Future
Unhappiness” 3;; to Rs.25,D{)O/- is
inadequate. of the use of his right
leg to is burdened with a limp and
ciefoI’mityVL”‘. Iii is entitled ‘£0 an additionai

sum of I above heads tegether.

‘ V V’Eve1ii in Vibe absence of evidence sue}: as medical bills and c31:he1″

W V’e.s’f,ab1isi1 the claim tawards medical expenses,

2 ceI1Vejj;.ance~ other expenses incu;m=:d during the period of

.it’r:”:-‘&;1*.II1e:11.’tv.cV_)Af the appeiiant, the award 0f R3.14,500/~ (mnveyance =

-, medical expenses =”- Rs.3,000/-» fit. hospital expenses =~”

. «-) is grossly inadequate and the Tribunal has proceeded in

whoily unreasonable manner, whiie losing sight of the fact thai the

appeliani: was a minor anti the want of diligemre on the gaff of his

@.

MFA 8952/2007

guardian or his Counsel in establishing this head of not

to have deferred the Tribufia} in awantiing a reaso;:i,_o.b1§:oVVaifiiou–:i: _

oompcflsatioztx going by the sustai11eé«_o”f I1g£”.o1i=éj_ AV

opixxicm, an additional amount of Réi;-3S,Q;CIOf~» _t_oW’aIdo’zjiiaodical
expenses and other charges is juéi res{so1;ab1o’v¢oiz§;;’fiéfioatioI§.V to

which the appellant is held

13. In so far as the Aolaim ‘earming capacity is
concerned — the of the right lower
iimb is not in V. of the same follows as
matter of uujs. A 309:3 that poses 21 problem in
awarding a ‘ coiiifiofinsation. Themfore, to err on the
side of p:fL:gienoé;~”n:i11com€ taken at Rs.4,00G/- and the
at a 11om:£;1a.1 1894:, to the whole: body,

t§:1 e–, “be entifled to a sum exceeding Rs. 1 laid}, the

same »}::owe’}ci;:i9:’j_:’r§SU”icted to Rs.1 iakh and is held entifled to the

~..f1″‘r;:=…:’ap;aeHant is therefore: held entitled to a total additional

of Rs.1,9(),OG0/ ~, in addition to the amount awaxtled,

‘wifi: interost at 6% on the additional compensation from the date of

S “award. Out of fhis amount, 50°/E» shall be kopt in fixeci deposit in a

MFA 8952/2007

nationaiizeé. bank, tiii the appellant attains be

exxtitied to Withdraw the same immeiiiately thereafiéf.

accoxflingly allowed in part.

KK