IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 23"' DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANEA 2' 'f ~ MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 1 19/2963 -A " BETWEEN: SMT. CHANDRAKALA, W/O. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, " R/A. C/O. LAKSHMIPATH}, " AMBEDKAR NAGAR, -- ANNAMMADEVI ROA;9,_. _ RAMANAGARAM . RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT.' : ' ._ " ...APPELLANT (Sri. K. .?'JTHAP.gA-j'ADVO'€ATE) AND 1. ..AL B. _ '- /Oj-NOT. KNOWN,' A =..AOE MAJOR, A V ._F<,1A';v4E)rH2'.1\3'r::}ON TOWN, ._ " TOWN. "'mE..'NA1'?iONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. ,. .. ,.REP;''BY ITS MANAGER, _ No.4. LALBAGH ROAD, MISSiON ROAD CROSS ROAD. BANGALORE 560027. RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH v.O.D_24.0S~;20Q$_:__O’ A’
Sn’. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(I)…OE 1\/IV’ ‘ ‘
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: V27.1*._2eQ=7.__PASSED_ ;
IN MVC NO. 118/2005 ON THE FILE OE TIIE*A_I::»D_L._ C2_I_VI_L.”–.
JUDGE {SR.DN.) AND MEMBER, M.A.,c:’r., I:>.AMANAOAR’.I
PARTLY ALLOWING THE u_PETIT__ION “FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION. ‘I
THIS APPEAL COMING’ ‘ONPCQR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURTATIIE-I_%OI;.LOWINO:
This “is ‘a._ VL’*’..1jE:’i_P1′.II’1E.l’IV1’1;’7.$” appeal for enhancement Of
compensatibn, –
jilxave fIeard——Sri K. Shantharaj, learned counsel for
Venkatesh. R. Bhagat, learned (1011 S61 for
inSII1*a;nce«CéiI1.;fi:1any. 6,-ls
3. I have been taken through evidence and impugned
award. It is established from medical records and
evidence that claimant had suffered following injuIiiTes:¥;- –1~ ‘
{1} Contusion of 1 cm X 1
right leg; * i
(ii) Segmental fracture _ ”
and right fibula: l ‘
{iii} Fracture of
ubiei ~- . with
displacement; ‘ ”
4. As per medical be ‘–:lei§1ce, after complete
treatment. claimant.v_ suffers” fro-tn’ .1″5’°/E; permanent physical
disability of 1_n:.s1–c>wej1_– llme a__nd] ?;5é2e”ef whole body.
llll adrarded compensation of
Rs.él.5,36z(}/~– =towarrds:_ljv*»~future earnings and loss of
earning gvcapdcity lar.:dA’*aVl’surn of Rs.10,000/~ as global
” V’ ~COm1aei1sation Aunde1*’other heads.
judge of the Tribunal, should have
V by _ awarded .a_:’om;5’ensatior1 under different heads recognised by
la«_za._’ This’. court in the case of Basavarcg V/s. Shekhar,
_’reeer:e’d in ILR 193′? KAR 1339 has deprecated the practice
[\j. /!i~..,1_,,l’3~..A\<.-.£_,_\ §
of Tribunals awarding global compensation without making
separate assessment of compensation under different heads.
7. ‘ihis Court in several judgements, hasg.jt_iine’*and-«V
again, reminded judges of the Tribunal to make sepa1’ate__f
assessment of compensation under”reCo«gnised_:.hAeads7 ‘The”g
learned trial judge of the Tribunalfhasf ffofllowed”
principles of law and has oveiwsimplifiedi__the_dprodeedured to
award global compensation of tov\}ard.s pain and
suffering, medical aarid nourishment
food.
~ jndge of Tribunal should have
referred the nature.,_»l’rp,agnitude and severity of injuries
sufferedby clairrian.t;’–so”valso residual effects of injuries, their
«–impa.c_:f* o:n,tl1e nonnafactivities of petitioner. Therefore, it
‘has l:$eooni_3.e ..rieeessary for this Court to assess and award
compensation under recognised heads.
., 9. claimant had suffered injuries stated supra.
nl~ieV’was under proionged treatment. Even after; complete
§\? K. {L 5’/’~”f'””” JL”
?
treatment he suffers from permanent physical disability of
right iower iirnb. The claimant was aged about 30 years”‘at
the time of accident and he was an
occupation.
10. The claimant has made
to establish that he was a tailor fact
remains that he was .sustaining._ gihysiicallilabour.
Considering the nature ‘ functionai
disability, E assess loss’ at 10%.
Consequent accident, he has
to sufferfrorn’~pairi<.;and during the rest of his
life. '1':i1ere,forvei"'~E*:~..rnod'ifir:"'compensation awarded by the
Tribunal ais..{§11oy§s':-d it
z{i) it siiffering: Rs.25,000/–
" ~ Medical expenses : Rs.5,000/-
"!A'ttendant, conveyance
L' * ' charges and nourishing _
food : RS'5'O00/M
V ° {iv} Loss of earnings during
laid up period 1 Rs. 2,000/-
/JV ..____s._ r
(V)
Thus, claimant is entitled t0A:’«t_ota_1A. c0nipensVafidr:{‘~of
R8.1,33,200/–
Loss of amenities : Rs.25,00O}’~-7
Future loss of earnings : d V
{Rs.3.OOO/W x 12 X 17 x 010)
11. In the result, zi pass the ‘f-‘r:):i10VVV’n’1f1g:– dd ‘
(ii
wast
6’%1§’D’E7R7
_ d
I axixfaied is modified;
‘ te,’eon?£’g§eedea{i_en V Rs.55,360/–
‘awe:~c:ed,’_L”-Q’ the Tribunal is
* Vetthefieeefeo Rs.1,33,200/– with
‘V V-.intefestV’ at the rate of 6% per
artr1u’1’1’1’Vfrom the date of petition
-.._°-r_:_11 the date of realisation:
The payment and investment
shall be in the ratio as evolved in
the impugned award; 5
AF, €,¢–“~,,’P/’/:-‘1 ‘H /’~’–.r
_
‘ro”£AL:’ r.ij0/_’–.V
RKK/–
(V)
Parfies are dnrxied to bear then’
costs. Vx F”
_f3Ei/£§i fa “,