Shri Maruthi Rao vs Shri Naveen S/O Shri Ramachandra on 9 March, 2010

15¢' _  «

" 'A"=.._}3anga1ore » 560 001.

IN THE) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH L'

BEFORE

'm1«: HONBLE MR. JUS'I'i{3E3'AR&A\?4'IVi\}FA_I;)u  A

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA.I';.1\E(:§_A._AE'{36iI5*  

BETWEEN :

Shri. Maruthi R210.  
S/0. Late Shri. Santh0jI"~Ra0_;V
Aged about 46 years, 4' A [ A *  ;  
Kalyananagar, Moodaiapaiya,    A
Bangalore -- 5650072.   '  '  .  *

 '        APPELLANT

(By Sri. Sripgicj VL"'S»h_;§3':A:iA} V1~'\€'h'.V",'-fiv 

if
1. SI11ji."i\}'av'eci':-«,.'< V'  
S / 0". A «Shri. Ramaich andra.
. ' 'vReshrha ANaveet*-.'.
..  N0'.375. S?%S___E1nterpr1ses,
A 41i2'*'*d Clfoss, 8"' Block,
  Jay~anagar, Bangalore -»-- 560 011.
 The -Maflager.
 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,
N (1.23 / 2. Tiffanys Annex.
Vitial Mallya Road.

 RESPONDENTS

 



marked. On E2116' basis of pleadings and evidence on

record. the Tribunal allowed the claim pet.itio_'n-.:.i=:1"§;1ei1'i,

and awarded a total Compensation of 

the following heads:
1. Pain. injuries and sufferixagsilr  "ll 
2. Incidental expenses    
3.  of income during   _ ll 1  V.
t1'ea'm'1ent periocj:'~~..A_   Rsl.lllOlA.lOOO/~
4. Loss of amenities  fiitillirel'  _. A  
life          7Rs.20.oo0g~

 ll 1   1     = i rx_.__._s.60 000.1:
It is   is now assailed in
the 
  l1é1\I:e"..:hee:i'rdlllé'ri.S1'ipad V.Shast.1'1'. learned

 "a for the appellant and

, 'Sri.C_,R..RsKr--ishankar. learned Counsel for the second

 re-spond'e»nt'.~j,'"l.Notice io respondent No.1 is dispensed

  Court by order dated 09.02.2010.

 



9. Per contra Sri.Ravishankar. learned Ceunsel

a.ppearir1g for second respondent would cé()nt4e11€i'--Vj.t.'hat

Tribunal had taken into consideration 

evidence placed before it and the b

Compensation under ail heads :'E'fhi(:}1.'ES'.',j1LI$VAE,::_.'.a"ri@'VV

reasonable and does not Ca_1'.I"'~..f3r any.i11.terfeVi*enee. He

would draw the attention   tdeontend that
no evidence is   is reduction
in the earningitvand as such the
claimant   'tn any compensation
 this ground he seeks

for dievinilssai of:  

 Hailing heard the learned Counsel for the

.A parties; 'th-evifoiiowing points arises for my consideration:

   compensation awarded by the Tribunal

in M'VC.i"Io.2725/2006 dated 20.03.2003? is just and
reasginable or it requires modification / enhancement?
 to what exterit'? '_
5 What order? "'/§'//

 



heading pain and sufferings. A(:Co1'ding1y the same is

awarded.

13. Admittedly the claimant. was 

Hospitals namely at Victoria Hospital andlV'Yel1ai'i1r_r1a 

Dasappa Hospital. He was inpatierit, f1:?.02rIli: 

20.03.2006 in Victoria Hospitayand  
22.03.2006 at Yellamrn-at.  Fiospi.ta.l'andl§again
from 22.03.2006 to   Hospital as
seen from the  case sheets,
out-patient  which has
been marked and P11 respectively. The

Tribunal wmie  the eiaim of the appellant

,_has a«§§Ia1'ded céompensation under the heading loss of

irieiome d_L1:rin.g"'tre21t.ment period accepting the fact that

ctlaimaiit. tirnmobile for a period of six months.

flifiowexrei-,V"A.whi1e awarding" compensation under this

 I  Tribunal has assessed that there is no loss of

 during this period t.h0ugh claimant has

W

 



the injuries sustained there is wasting and weakness of

right lower limb and hence there is Considerable loss of

amenities in life for the claimant. The Compen.s'a_§f1(>_rie--VV

awarded by the 'Fri'oL1nal under the  

amenities of life at Rs.20.000/~ being on the lower side, 

the same is required to be enhaneedll by _da'wa.rd'irig.

another sum of Rs.l5.OO0/W eon'si_derir'1g.__t.l2e leVid.g=3r1'e'e"of
the Doctor and also nature of inj!..1.'Ij,z which lW'o1,1ld7result
in loss of amenities of lii'e.e'i'oli*._i;he elalxmant, in future.

Accordingly a _suDm.'  V" the said

heading is lzliWa;rded.'' 1:: 
15. it has 'C_orn_e._if:-~._'evir:i'ence that inplaiits are in

situ 1.6,. Still   ()f"lj,l'l1'é:Cl£Ell1"I1-':1l1'[. and Doctor has not

 W'i'th"i'.rega1'd"miiol future surgery that is to be

 not be 21 ground to reject the

2  claindaof the fcvll1f;J}A3€ll«1~"1}I"1l, towards future medical expenses.

" The fact.et7llinplants being admitted the nai;u'ral corollary

  that the appellant ---W claimant. would have to

 



In View of the above. the f()11()wi:1g order is passed:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part. The c0mpensatiQtI~._v

as awarded by the Tribunal is erlhaneed by a3iJ:ardi1’ig”–a A ~

further compensation of Rs.62,00Q/.=. whic_h”‘sha’.Ei

interest. at the rate of 6% pa £’r0ri;i.’t4}1ecEat:e’~.Qf

till the date of payment. t’i1e_
enhanced. 50% with proportiozmte.”ir1t’e.1fest shed] kept
in Fixed Deposit in any in the name

of the Claimant’ a and claimant

would be..–g’Iiii}[:1If§d =–Mfifi’dtaw”‘pefziodieai irlterest. and
remaining_50§Vo’xvitit”p£fOpertienat.e interest is ordered to
be paid to ti1e*e1aim_a.ntfeftlawith. N0 order as to costs.

Sé/e
§E§B@E;