IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22%") DAY 012' SEPTEMBER, 2010 BEFORE D " THE I-ION' BLE MR. JUSTICE 13.sREENIvAEEE ¢ewDA Miscellaneous First Appeal No.»..»1.0072.of ' . Between Shri. B. Prabhakar Reddyj S / 0. Late Shri. Venugopal, Aged about 28 Years. ' C / O. Gangara1naiah._,""~._ _ _ V --. . R/ a. No.146, Srinidhi '[,ayoz,_1€;. '} , 43* Stage. Vidyaranyaptira. ig t 2 Bangalore ---_ 09'.-f'. 9 ' 9 _ _ V .. Appellant S'ii-:;ri.pao1 S-'hiiS.tFiE. Adv.) 1. The "New VIndia.VAssurance Co. Ltd., 5 ' "D1v1s1o'nAa1"Off1ce No.11}. 9'/'§.2_, Mahaiaksvhmi Complex. '2?" floor. M G Road. a "Bar§'gal'ore--1. ' vvBy.v1tsV".M.anager. _'c3i11f1j;= N Ashoka, .. S./O. Late Shri. N L Nanjunda Reddy. -Major. Narayanaghatta Vlllage. Anekal Taluk. Bangalore District. Respondents
(By Sri. S V Hegde Mulkhand, Adv. for R. 1.
R2 – notice dispensed with V/0. dated 5/8/2010}
This MFA is filed U /s 173(1) of MV Act againjsto the
Judgment and award dated: 14.53.2008 passed’ “ir_1_”l_Vl’—[C
No. 8311/2005 on the file of the Judge, Cou«rt.of__Srnall_
Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area’,:*-Bangalofreo,
{SCCH.No.9), partly allowing the claim__ petition for__
compensation and seeking” ..éenlijance-mer1t__:~_ ‘of ‘
compensation.
This appeal comingfon for”.Admissio1:;iythisjgdayflfl
the Court, delivered the follojvirig:
This appeal A’/,pth.e’.’V”e1pairnar1t seeking
enhancemerit o:rf’l.oo111pei1sation=. V it it
2. r, lHeerei§+tg.t epleeei risflvadmitted and with the
conserit_of Couri«sel appearing for the parties, it
is taken up V-for’fi”nal’ disposal.
‘ _ facts of the case are:
26.11.2005 when the claimant was riding
his stzooter bearing registration No. KA 05 K 8447 from
it ._Hosur to Bangalore near, Sona garments ‘U’ turn a
goods tempo bearing registration No.KA–O5–A~»6472
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
&,.
against his scooter, as a result he fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. Hence. he filed a ___cla1rn
petition before MACT, Bangalore seeking comp_en:safiQn
of Rs.2,75,000/- and the Tribunal
compensation of Rs.5l.OOO/~ withrinteif’estl’4a’t-16%’ it 2
4. As there is no dispute regarding ,o5eculrreni;eu”of”‘be
accident, negligence and liabilitjgof tliefllnsuiijer of the
offending Vehicle tlief’ _on_1y;_’}ooi.ri’ti””tthat remains for
consideration is: _ ‘
Wiiethler, the-.rconipe’nsation awarded by
the ‘i’ribu:aal isjust and reasonable or does it
callioif. enh’fancernent?_
5. Afterhearingltlae”‘l.e’arned Counsel appearing for
thepartiels the judgment and award of the
the View that the compensation
_ Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it
is’=-cn..__’the:”‘lower side and therefore it is deserved to be
‘ it ernhanced.
‘E6. The claimant has sustained fracture of left tibia
and four other injuries. Injuries sustained by him are
evident from wound certificate Ex. P 4, OPD car of K.C.
General Hospital, Ex. P 5, Four X–rays Ex. P _6_ and
supported by oral evidence of the claimant
doctor examined as PWS 1 and 2 respectiv’eiy.V
first treatment at Garden” “View V
subsequently at K.C. General P1°dor:.i2
inpatient. The treatment was
conservative with c_a’s”t,” ian””orthopaedic
surgeon of Generiaidbeitoduced the out
patient iivitiii bertaining to the
client as? A ‘8mto”:.€prove that there was a
fractured P…’/sduiiered 35% disability to
partieul_ai’ to the whole body.
6…)
;_.C0nsiderin.Q.__.the nature of injuries Rs.15,000/–
V the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is
it side and it is deserved to be enhanced by
another sum of Rs.10.000/– and I award Rs.25,()OO/–
3″ V. this head.
it 8. Considering the nature of injuries and duration of
treatment Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal
$5′
towards medical and incidental expenses is just and
proper and it does not Cali for enhancement.
9. The Tribunal considering the notiona}g”‘i1i{:Vor;:1e
the claimant and probable laid hp perisd4.:–«.,
awarded Rs.6,000/– towards loss of
up period and there is no scope fo1’=..enhariee1%aent ulnderpw’ >
this head.
10. Considering the by the doctor
and an imhappiness the
cia:man:’i;a§§ “:3,0oo/– awarded by the
adrnednities is just and proper
and it doesp not cal} fo1:__e11hancement.
is aged about 25 years. The
iappficabie to his age group is 18. The
‘ic§isab’:1itdg?r;#£ateei by the doctor to whole body is 12%.
Accordingly fufure loss of income works out to
V§;s:A;’?.”?,’?60/– (Rs._I3-,0’O0/~ X 12% X 12′ X 18] and it is
__ awarded.
%’
12. Thus the claimant is entitled for the following
compensation:
1} Pain and suffering Rs. A’
2) Medical &incidenta1 ” L” l’
Expenses Rs. 1 2 A ‘ ;
3} Loss of income _. .
During treatment period”. Rs._.. _’l6jOO0./j–.
4) Loss of amenities 3 Rs.’ ..15,000c/–w.,.o.’
5] Loss of future income:__ Rs.’ 7’2
Totali-Jr’-t. V. ,_iRsip,s’3g;i76o/-
13. Accordingly ‘A “part. The
judgment ‘modified to the
extend is entitled for
total ” $38,760/– as against
Rs.E’>:l,_gC)O'(“)1’V–V the Tribunal with interest at
6% compensation of Rs.87,760/–
f1fo’mE’__lAVthlVe claim petition till the date of
V realisation,”
‘ilhev ‘insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation with interest within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and the same is ordered to be released in
favour of the claimant. Out of the enhanced
compensation 75% with proportionate interest is
ordered to be invested in FD, in the name of the
claimant in any nationalised or scheduled ._a
period of six years and remaining amount-i’s”or{1e”re(ie.t0
be released in favour of the c1aj1fnan’t;. ”
N0 order as to cost.