N» T IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS TI-IE 25m'DAY OF JANUAIQYQ2't')'?ljQ'V''. : BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE3V:J}xGANNATT3iANiW M.F.As.No.23'788/2009 Tc/w 22659/2009A(MV;.yA- In M.F'.A.No.23788/2009 BETWEEN: SM'I'.SHARADAi\/EMA .. : 'V w/0 NAGARAJ@NAGAPPA _ ' AGE:41 YEARS, _0C(_3:'COC!LIE, -. " R/O 3RD wARD'V1é§.M§:§$iA.L.L:, ' . 'I'Q:HOSPE'I', V. APPELLANT (By sri.Hvagiinnén_thé:§;edd3rAV'.:S Adv.) AND 1.
sm.sANNA._,RAwMAN-MALI
.3;/0 S.RANG’AP.P_A _
“AGE.:’32’YEARs, “”” ”
» j~ -.QCCv:DRI.VER OF’ TATA INDICA
“.’TB133A.R-INGVRZEGN NO.KA~35/M-3598
~. ‘Rio VHAMAPATNA VILLAGE,
‘ .fI’Q:H,I3.i~£_ALLI
DISEHBELLARY.
AA .=SRI.A.1VIAHESH
, S140 AANJINAPPA
“AGEMAJOR OCOOWNEIR OF’ TATA INDICA
BEARING REIGN. NO.KA–3S/M–3598
R/O KOTTUR ROAD, RAMANAGAR,
[\J
H.B.E-IALLI TALUK DISTYBELLARY.
3. THE GENERAL IVIANACER
ICICI LAMBORO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY- . ‘
EUREKA JUNCTION, CLUB ROAD, A
DESHPANDE NAGAR,
HUBLI-29. ..,”.» ‘ «.
(By Sri.S.K.KayakmaLh, Adv. for R3, _
Notice to R1 and R2 dispcnscd with’),
This appeai is flied u/s 1 73*v–(_T1′]~–of the MV’ACt, Végéifis’£ the 1′
judgment and award dated 20.i3..S.2.009 “passed in MVC
NO.135/2008 on the fir1..r:§ Of g’t’r’i:~:A ,_:I’.’IOiOr ACCiCEe1i”t Claims
Tribuna1–VII I-Iospet, p.:–1Vrt_I_yVf a11QW3;~ng”~~th€ ~C1aiI’n petition for
Compensation and sccking cn_}_iarxC.e.;3nent O-f”COf1′:3:)ensatiOn.
In M.E.A.No.226§9,/20,09, j}
Between:
1. SR:_.A.MAEi£:–SII
S/OA.A.ANJINA.R-RA _ ‘ _
AGE:MAJOR =:)CC:w.NER OF TATA INDICA
BEARING RECN. I«.%(3.Ig:.A–3:”3/M-3598
R,/O KO’I”1’URROAD, RAMANAOAR,
.H–,,.B.HALLI T}I~L.Uv__§§_«E)fST:BELLARY.
1 ‘~1.THE:O-.E–NE~RAL MANAGER
” ,,.ICIC.I’».I,ANIE_OjRO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
— ‘EUREKA_.JUNCTION, CLUB ROAD,
‘ ..pEsI{.RANI)E NAOAR,
HUBLI–29. …APPELLANTS
gay”sri.,,s.I{.Kayakamath, Adv)
‘.4
And:
1. SMTSHARADAMMA
w/0 NAGARAJ <52; NAGAPPA
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC:CO(_)LIE,
R/O 3RD WARE) M.M.HALLI,
TQ:HOSPET,
DISTYBELLARY.
2. SR1 SANNA RAMANMAL1 V
s/0 SRANGAPPA *
AGE:32 YEARS,
OCC:DRI\/ER os TATA INDICA, to
BEARING REGN No:;KA«35..;’M>3;598-»
R/O HAMAPATNA \’i:LL–AG–rj£, V,
‘E’Q:H.B.HALLi
DIST:BELLARY. _ r. RESPQNDENTS
(By sri.Hanumariatithgexégdag. s}:i1:{uk_g¢;. W, “for R1}
judgment” antiattewaréfi ‘ dame 20.05.2009 passed in MVC
NO.I35/20008’ on’ft’iV3_»e”i “of the Motor Accident Ciairns
Tr’1buna1–V!I Hospet,’taiwqgiifrgé (;~or1’1per1sati0n of Rs.7,56,000/–
along with interest ‘{‘;’;t’I= 5% .p.”a.,0 from the date of petition till the
date of deposit}. ” _
This.a.ppe’a1i”islifilcd 1,1’/4 73 ..(.,i} the MV Act, against the
appealsiitensing on for further orders, this day? the
scoiurt deiiviejred the foiiowingz
iJUDGMENT
T–hes.e. two appeais arise out of one and the same
i.”.1″5’1idgment ‘oi’ the Tribunal and they are disposed of finally with
it theeonsent of learned counsel for the parties.
fir
2. M.F.A.No.23788/2009 is fiied by the c1aimanitii’»i.for
enhancement of compensation whereas
is by the Insurance Company questioning the»i_i”quaniturn [oft
compensation.
3. Sri.I-Ianurnantharecidy Sahutiar, «learned cou1fisie_1iifoir; the
claimant submits that the not amount
towards loss of amenities life awarded
towards future medical side whereas
submission of counsel for the
Insurance Co?rnpainyii”iiiis’—- thatfutihe.assessment of disabiiity at
100% byjthe ‘iiribii,_ii3a.[iii:Vis higher side and is contrary to
the medical Vevidenceieif’the-._d0:itor who had put it at 50% for
the whole. bodyhand “nve”nce- cornpensation be reduced.
fVar«.a*sV the medical evidence is concerned, it has been
ogiiiiledbyii t1ie’_v~docitoir that the crush injury on the right leg lead
to frac’t’L1re”—-ioif the right knee, ma} united fracture of right fibular
ii”Viib.oir1e and loss of bone of the tibia and the claimant underwent
operation for piatcs and screws being set in and there is
.ii_4ish’ortening of the right leg by about 2 inches. The MACT
.%
further took the disability at 1.00% and also made an
observation in its order that the claimant was brought
court in a wheel chair and was found unable to”:stan€ifor ‘
walk and also required assistance__io.f__som_ei o’t’hé:;> “p5;rso1’1,_ it
Taking all these factors into accountfythe;’_’ivE.fiCT._obse1*\}edi’—-ti*iat:
she is virtually a dead person i’iVi:1_g and.thereicreittitv«-awarded –. L’
the compensation by taking disabilii:y,Vat–.VlOO%; I
5. Having regard to the” «r1ie.di’caIiferidieriiceion record and the
submission put forth by the iea.rned.t3ounSei”fort the parties and
the Tribunal also _obser§_xed’ . tliatmiithe claimant was
brought in fliheel”:t;:htair’~.to–. and she has virtually
living 1ittétt–ia t1ettti_ hr the View that the disability
taken at IOU?/phithert;%_f’o17ef<f;1o.es not call for any modification.
_.vMoreo,r.*er, occupa€,'io.zii of the ciaimant is that of a Coolie and
_Viii1<:iind:"'taf_ fracture suffered by her and she being
corifined to«iig\tthe'<;r:;l"'chttir one cannot expect such a person go
and do'coo3ie 't*.?t:)1"]<.
it ‘lifts far as loss of amenities is concerned, the MAC!’ has
Rs.10,000/» under the head of loss of amenities,
dissatisfaction and frustration and therefore it cannot be said
that no amount has been given towards Eoss of arnenitieis-o’f.i.i’fe.
For future treatment, the MACT has given Rs.15,Q§}O/–: ‘
same can be enhanced by a further_;s.u,rn ofi§s15;QOC/{_’AandV if
under other heads no enhancement ié~,caI;’E:e(i “for”as*t_he
given by the Tribunal is just ancifreavsonabvie.
7. Thus, the z:1ward’an2ountgets:ieniharicediiiby–..I2si5,O0O/–.
The appeal filed by theft’ in part in
modification of filed by the
Insurance in deposit be
transferreidtrr. if
Sdf*
Iudge