I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12*' DAY OF AUGUSI' _25fd§.' . x
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS'FlCE;'2$§~I'g§;i~$1):"BYI2;Ai{€DI§§' ' :~
BETWEEN:
Smt. Shaniamma, 49 y¢.2;ar:§§:%'~
W10 Jayarame Gowda " '
Resident of Shcttikoppa f _
N.R.Pt1raTal§u1C'..: V1'- 3: ~ '
APPF,I.,I..ANT
(By GiriSf:- vfieiule)
' * .. Ii V. Kiimaza,
" Sfo'vThit:2vm'egowda
Dfi w§"r--« gf Atztinickshaw
V Isis. KAI-3815871
""She5.{ikc2p"pa Village
N." R. 'Para Taluk
= : chs¢kmaga1ur District
B. Chandrcgowda, Major
8/0 A. G. Belie Gowda
Owner of Aulorickshaw
Beaxing No. KA-18-5871
Shcllikoppa, N. R. Fun!
3
ISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 7o¢9.»;g:.;o.o6.n,:v. %
2
Taluk, Chikmegalur District
3. The New India Assurance
Company Limited
Branch Office, Chickmagalur
Represented byits ; '"'
Branch Manager A ._ f
(By Shri. A. S. Girish, Adv0ea!x:..f(3r Rezaeondent. 2 _ " ,
Shri. A.K. Bhat, Advocate for Responde'n$__No,A 3,ait--:I"Re§pondent
No.2-Served) ' ._
t;ez~+~«.=#*--.
This Miscellaneous under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act the judgement and
award dated 5.: ;2,0o6 pa_.€sed..§h MVt:..1~¢q, '545/2m2 on the file of
the PIincipal..1f3isLif§et_'_Judge iarpd Evieinber Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Chiingingigaiar, ' alltuving the claim petition for
c0.mp6n:s&1£it5is..;ji1L}-iégflc, " "
This on for hearing this day, the Cuurt
, '_ de_li$:ere_ti the f0li'6Wi_11;%i:~
JG NT
the Counsel fur the appeilaril and the Cuurisei for the
rezsgyontients.
2. The appellant was the claimant before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal seeking enhancement ufcompensatiun.
4
The appellant was aged about 49 at the time
with the alleged accident, resulting iri »injuries"'teii2er"'iight
and she was left with a permanent tvaathe
to the arm. And it is on ttiisiitiasts that sgipemehed at
Motor Accidents Claims °E7sr etirnwnsaiititin. The
Tribunal has awarded It is this which
is under ehallenge. *_-.
3___ would submit that the
Medieul hsri been examined in support 91' the
claim hasiiclearlyiiepihied there was a large extent of disability
_ fl tov_»tlii;e W--he__reb3,« the appellant is totally incapable of using.
' _appellant's avueatiun being that of a euolie, the
arid the disability is to a greater extent and therefore,
the was not justified in not addressing a claim towards
s,;¢::i:1ii'pens:-ztiori under the head of disability. The Tribunal has
.?v'__Eailed to address conventional heads of claim in granting
compensatiun. The Tribunal has not thought it lit to award any
6
sum towards loss of amenities or towards the attendant:«.i_elie1ges
and other charges, which the_appeI1ant was
during the time of her treatment. The'"lcss
of two months, though allowed, ii
compensation being granted. iTl--ie:iV'appelliant to
enhanced compensalicri4"unde:-:*' iclaim, which
the Tribunal has the Counsel would
seek all--rot1né_l V.
__ respondent would point out
that the opinion as to the percentage of
disithility is faul.t§t and is not in aecordamce with the established
‘ this doubtful evidence which has prompted the
i’ i*ihunai’i–i’ltoiihegate the claim towards disability. Though the
Practitioner has assessed the disability to the particular
in , at 90%, his further opinion that it would translate to 50%
disability to the whole body, is not supported by any special
reasons. Hence, this would run counter to the established norms
3
that in respect of the upper limb, the whole body
normally translate to about 25% of 6Xl6Hl”(‘Jf.tii3t-.tl3illl}{ {l’1t’,3i”~
upper limb. In the instant case, tlie ‘being
98%, the disability to the i229:xi:3;
Hence, the inconsistenoy of any
compensation insofar is concerned.
Insulin’ as othetlieads the appellant herself
had claimed” per month and the
income. This has resulted
in the a higher sum. Insulin as the pain
andA.sutTering andstnedieal expenses are concerned, the Tribunal
it ” has” awe:-al,eda just amounts of compensation. The only marginal
appellant may be entitled is under the head of
loss ofvwneiiitties which would be at the discretion of the Court.
*T.’1;;_ afipellant however, has not made out any case for any
‘sitlditional claims either under the head of disability or towards
“other expenses in the absence of material made available and
therefore the Counsel would submit that the appeal be dismissed.
3
Tribunal- In the facts and circumstances, the appeflanlcjwxyuld be
entitled to Rs.lS,000/- allcasl towards loss of W;cc.;:c;¢.;.cc;c T116
medical expenses and treatment not being dispvqlcé, i’iiV’_§,v:$’u}aI aisgi
be possible to award ulhcr cxpcndiltcc, a “V
nalurai consequence of the injuries éind”‘£rcaLr;ién;L _ A jjsutn ci.’
Rs.10,000/– [awards misccllaiicgiusu cxpcnfiiluzci including
con vcyance and ailcndanifié’ chaargcs
additicaal .cu:§p¢rgs;;:im:cni’cRs.ss,36or- with interest at 5% per
annum frcfrflhcv
Sd/-‘
Judge