RE THE man COURT OF' KARNATAKA cgacurr B;2::é:b--;%I
AT GULBARGA ~
DATED TH§S THE 4% my 01:' M&R(;§fI,T2;QG:9f."~ % T '
PREsENT
THE HION'8LE MR.._K.:s'r1cE 'V.£}._SA3ri;?;;;':T = " "
AND-.._ V
'mg: HOWBLE M:2.JUsTIQE;V--%,A.s.PAmV§1;§:PURs:"'
MFA m__.15;.9';2GQ4gMw ' '
BETWEEN:
SAFIK, ~ ~
S/'Q BABUSAB_M'_QK$£SHi.,
AQEE} AB{'")U'I'::'124 " '* '
ace: STUEEENT AND *i::00L1B,..
R;0:ANGA1>:BU:LDIN'G, _ _ --
SHASTRI NAGAR, B'iJjA.PuR';'--T.TA_ ~ '
- - ..APF'ELLAN'f'
(BY SR; SH1vA4i;E:;E LA. sf. Abiz. ,)
'V ._ . 'i. I z ' v.. ..... .. 'V
':M'RS;v.::i5R.é,s;§A 8. cHAm)A,
" ' _ ""vg1:§€sR: R.\f.NAE)AGOU§A, AI3v., FOR R2,
._ "-Q;<§"BR,;J;;;~s%1KUMAR CHASE:-A,
A VMALJQR; 01:30: BUSINESS,
§%;0.--._PLm' No.20, SIRUR PARK,
VIDY!a}'~EAGAR, HUBL1.
V 'rag BRANCH MANAGER,
'-EENITED Imam INSURANCE 00., ::m.,
1:3:..JAPUIe.
,.R'ESPONDENTS
SRE Pi.-BBELAMGI, ADV, FOR R1)
THIS MFA £3 FILED UIS 173(1) 0??' MV ACT AGAINST 'I'HE«
JU§GMEN'I' AND AWARD DATED 24.9.2033 PASSED IN MVC
533.810/98 GN THE FiLE OF TEE MEMBER', MACE'-V, 81. PRL.
cm; JUDGE (SEEN) 3.2. CJM, BIJAPUR, PARTLY Azsoxwgéiat} THE
CLAIM PE'I'f'§'IDN FOR compgwsgmom Am:-'_ "Si:';Ei7»lING
ENHANCEMENT op COMPENSATION. . ' V. .
THIS APPEAL comma ON FOR I4¥.£%:,}%_§_.T:%.§I\i«f{' .4T<5'Dm?,
PACHHAPURE, J DELIVERED THE FC}£;§;{)&VIN.{}: "
Jumsmflwfi"
The appellant dissatisfied wixiirzshe mm: :£:xfV@5:)"i':"1f;'§nsatic$i1
awarded by the MAUI', tI1'i'$V"app .ea} sefiking
enhancement of co333.pensati{3i;1{ ' "
2. The as under:
it that the appciiant was
pro<:eediI1g -aic:Angsvi1;b;'V'»§1§s§T'vL1§%ic.1§§:..«-puiling the scooter to the Work
shop. Whezi tl1ey' cafmé'--._f1éa} Godavari §~{ote1, the truck bearing
" E~E9;K,A;§25v,'--9?96 came from the opgosite ciirection
.ۤ;:iivf:i::"7m_ negligeut manner dasheii the petitioner. The
petiiiofifiz' injuries and thereafter he was taken to 1.113
1:0s§ita§ fgf' 13:15 "purgaose sf treatment and he was an inpatient far a
V ' {aims he had suficred the fracture {If T12 vertebra and he is
_13&;ot"Vi_;3 5a position to wark. in the circumstances, the aypellant
T compensation far pain and suffefing, mental ageny,
Vhfizedicai expsnses, $033 of f:1t"urr: inccvme figtune medical expenses
/(
7 /'
etc. ,
in purstiance of the I10¥;iC€ issued, the 2&4 mgéjjondent
appeamd befom the Tribunal ant} filed written stat¢m§§:_d4E
the: 0CCf11I'I'filZiC€ of accident, rash and nesgligt:-tnt drivi;s::._g afié é11§{')--fhc'
quaiztum of compensafion c1a;imcd:"i§ "l1ig.ih3y éiizé 7.
umeasonabla. On the basis of the
issues and thereafiter the ..¢xaifii:1.¢€1 fig PW};
father PW2 and the doctor,-}?:W3 ex'd«de'fice5§got marked
dacumants Exs.Pi to P-28$; ./did not choose to
lead any €<vide:1ce'_1&i:37§ hgxéééfiefié: §§:.R1-copy cf the
insuxtazace ;}0§i(':*_}7.; 4' ' '
Tha :T 1ib§1ne§: of the material 01:: rticord
awarded comf5e:;Sati<3fi._¢§i'._F%.'£.fi,:§,31,iO()/-- with interest at 6% 13.3.
__fI:fom th.c.i.dE2:t'e of péV'f;iiiQ1T1_'__t'iHL malisation. Thé appefiant dissatisfied
'With. uas;v§:1'L1n£*: df.comperzsatien has pI'€3ff:I'}Z'€:§ this appeal.
255% L'}{§*;::1§;;re heard {ha iaarztzed counsei for the appsliant
also t1':1_é°1carned counsel for the Qfié respondent. The point.
__ ‘iaéi aztiéés for 6111″ censideration is:
“Whcthm the appellant is entitled to the
” exzhazxced Compensatien, if so, to what extent? ”
4. it is the? contention of the lsanmd counsel for the
appeiiant that though the Tribunal hesld that there is 60-709/9 of
disahiiity as found in the evifiexsece crf PW3 thfi a}3pe}1ant~;3{:t.iti011er
has sustained fr-actlztre Bf vertebra at T12 and thmghyif
paraplegia and lost pawer in €113 lower limbs.
T133 perusal. Gf evidencfi reveals Lhéi hi: §s 1i10fL ‘Q ;r>v::>si3£;ioxfi;t0’ T AV
move and wan on tlm date ref £:vi:ieI1Cé’«}f1(;é~A–‘fsjs}.:;,1s ;§ij¢ié.e:3.t
Court. His eviéence: was mcoxd%»:d ;: géivfi Vgéjziéixfiiiée lyiiig’
an the bench. This fact ifisafif is p1″()«’wi-:’ he has lost
power of both the lower 2:. position to walk in
future. In additiqn “c’:’13 rte-ord, evidence
of P’W3«tI1¢ mvcais that
due to gaetitioncr has sufiizmd
pamplegirifl-Aand” in both the lower limbs and
ha is mat in a”‘.*’f.x72?.i’}A§i.’%Vthr(}ugho11t his life time, Therefore,
_.;11e ;3e,zt£§;:@11’m?I:t éiof both. the limbs is to ba assessed at
S0 .1Ea1f a.s the disability of the iimb is concerned, PW3
s!:fiLf?3″ .{1;Aaf’ 51″)”-..’?'{}”‘/6.). As the apgmiiant has lost strength in
V both, 1e–gj$,’}1’€: cannot Waik, he cannet move wiihout anyboéfs
” H ” iasfi.?$;st3_:1ceV’${$ also he caxmot do any work. Tlllfit d0ctc>r«F’W3 in his
ct§.?i:;1ét:cz:’ has stated that either with $113 assistance of attexzciants
aitsmfthe apycflant is not in a posifion to move thereby functional
disability will havé to be taken into consideration and as the
appellant is am: in 3 position to do any work in his lifetime it is
mken at 100°/”9. S0, c:.onsiad.cring the evidence of PWs.1 ta 3, we are
E”
‘R 5/
: ‘»é—-».,_
future fife of the apgacfiant we deem it pmper {<3 3'§e5?'81'd,":-€V§.31Ti*,:.:"2~?,VIr£[i{)"11I1t
of R's.1,{){),DOG/~ towarés futum medica} e:x;}er;é@:s,.,:
charges eta, ._
Furthtr, the Tribunal has not
towards loss of happiness
consicieration the fact that'_.§h.e ,13:as £§:§ '}i:¢°:_03-;'J.i§ the bed 333}
along fine ts) fracture of it is just and
proper to award a ;s'11.;t 11 head thereby the
appellant is fiéfifiéfisafion im the appeal
'efi
as under:
Pain gm ééuffexén-g,V’£l§é:§tai _’ % Rs. 1,0o,900–o0
For 1033 of f11:f’a3».3{7ff ” Rs. 2,’?O,(}0O-»O(}
4_ .. Ey’Icdical.§;e:;§f§é:¥1s:es ” V V Rs. 2,73, £O{)~–(){3
‘~Te3Wa;;v.:is fzlturc émsdicai expensrzs,
A’.:t_en.;§a’;u: Rs. 1,{)(},()O0-0()
‘ V’ i0s3.{:%i.1:e:ppin£ss and amenities Rs. 5{),G()CI»0Q
Tcstal Rs. 7,983, }.O{)~{)C)
8. The appellztmt is entitled so the amount stateci above
in.t<::'€s£, at 6% pa. Hence, we answer tha wait in afiizmative
/.
and proceed ta pass the following: