IN THE man COURTOF KARNATAKA AT
omen 'nus me 10"' nAy.oE4MAitéH;.:;1fvaéB,'_' N' N
BEFORZE4
nu: I-lDN'BLE IIIR. N' N
sax BABUL MOJUMDER V' "
5/0 DHIRENoRAin~'11-sin.
HUHINDI IYIC JUlJ\JI"IlZlII HIIU HIUHNU 'IJl"'i5$-.-".n-3.', 'Q.
.1' ".
i'!a£'--QU|.i~~ b ~-
PASSED IN me No. 895/2005 on" me 91:5 or tH«s%1p1oAoo'e.. 7 1
cxvn. JUDGE (siz.oN). MEMBER, Nauemimg,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM-BETITIQN FOR.'C(C!f~'i.PI§iiiSATi0i8i':s.
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT oi{coMPENsA*n,oN.
This appeal coi'i1i_i1g on f¢N?,ti§:aoi.,,Ahearing day, the
Court delivered the foiiowin;;.:,.¥" " -.
The 'fiiedvfciaim petition, cia:--inc
com:oensation.Vfto3m th'e~«'.if_es_pont1ents on the account of the
injuriee.__sustain_eei,'Ab§('"him'in the motor vehicies accident,
whichpphaéo" o:cc'ur.*red°-on:24.4.2005. In the claim petition,
had ciaimeti' ttttt i5Kvs.10,0D,OO0/- as the compensation
Vgsaye.IV_i!'eh to The cieim pe
-Jon having been contested
AA tri'biivn.a'i by a common judgment and separate awards, has
"enforced compensation of Rs.2,05,200/- in favour of the
appellant. Disstatisfieci with the amount awarded, claiming
a enhancement of compensation to Rs.5,o0,000/-, I.e., for
'V-
/--
awarding of difference amount of Rs.2,94,$G3«.i?."'fi[e-jhieé'
filed this appeal.
II _.._I I..-
2. HQ r the iearn"..as-iveca-at-9 anneennn
the sides and perused the impiianedvhaward. the
tribunal.
of the fifiiiiiiifit
3. it is coirtended'onI'bei:e'if_ '
tribunal in: preoerijfnioticing the injuries
sustaivned_i'n.e_the.; on 24.4.2005, the .
amount of xeir:sen:tiitu'rei"'incurred towards treatment, i.e.,
both romleaicaz treatuiiehtiana on other heads, the loss of
during,-._.Vt..e lgriod of treatment, as well as the
. freductlon--.i:'n--..eernini tenacity, on account of the nernzenent
~. l'h3uri'eé"'_*eustai'ned in the accident, ioss of amnities en'
other-Theadis.
4. Refutino the said 'ontfifitions, learned cennsel
appearing for the 2"' respondent -- insurance cfompany
contended that, the tribunal has taken into consideration,
evidence of the claimant as\weli as the doctors and after
%
7
noticing the injuries sustained,’ the amount
treatment and related aspects, considerlnd”‘VthEe’;Vthat i” it
the appellant has failed to establish he.’iMais avid-riiier;
and was earning Rs.6,000/¥V.p’;nji. andias th’e’Aeyvi«deM::e
P\.fl.!.3 was without any bas_ls;jA’~the..__trlhun§l_ hes rightly
awarded Rs.2,G5,2d$};V;.–. _ however
conceded that there :is”rl-elf: ai’~a_’ifdg” towards ioss ‘f
amenities§.an’cI4’__e’nhancenjient ithatifepard, is only called
for. In contended that the
award…Apa.ssedi’h§:-tiheet’rii§:una’i,-‘should be upheld.
,5. ia¢:onVsId.erin’g’ rival contentions and the
Alnipuganeqajuugnient’and award, the point that arises for
“‘c;in’sid’e.fation:v’is, “whether the tribunal has passed -a just
‘end r_esoinei§le award, If not, is the appellant entitled to be
. It is not now in dispute that, the accident has
6
i ‘ “taken place the epp_!lant was the victim and has suffered
I’
the ifuries, such as, muitipie small abrasions ever up
‘I
I3.
face and fracture of shaft of the iefi: femur at rniddie 3- .
4
‘X
The treatment obtained by the appellant frorngthe 4_
has been established from theta-erai ” ‘ ;
evidence. Tribunal has accepteej”‘the’~-factv
appellant has produced lnedi.cal bills ‘fort.11lié;82,w9’fi1.48′.VL’
The material_:’factor_-“‘to’.’ is, whether the
appellant. eves as at deposed by PW.3
and was Evidence of PW..3 does
not “Even though he has stated that it
is a company” employed, he had falm to
c. atténdancevrepister and salary fia””””ii”‘|t r”l*ter.
.’ jpI.f_ the~’..ap’pei_iant was employed as a driver and was
. recelvlnp.__Ré{;’6;000/- p.m., while examining PW.3, records
as shovv ‘the employment and the payment of salary, could
at ha_ve°”been produced. Though it was claimed that the
1″‘.la’ppellant was a driver, even his driving licence has not
same cannot be found fault with. in view of the inability of
the apoeiiant to produce the proof
employment and the saiory ear__n.ed._bY _i1’in1.=i7j1:onsI_dei*ing” .
the medical evidence that thereis;f10%«’disobitit§rIi”oon”’tho ‘
whole body on account of”tho_occidont, winged; income’
of the appellant at Rs.3,00OZ¥’jA-end_,_»apoiy’ing._theé muitipiier
‘-are. re’e.rnVi.og”eccount of permanent
Since there?’-.i§ eutdénce on record, in my
view,”the’-~tribu_nVoVi” considering his monthly
incorj1e._atxVVii5.3_rti{i01’¥_’fend computing the loss of future
earning. J
vviiiowevergthe tribunal has not awarded just and
V V”VV’r_eo.sovn§bie::Compensation with regard to the loss during
i” the treotnient period and future medical expenses.
..l..I-…I .Il._l. .,_ . _ . . _ g . g -..-_.; mung.
, I1 urlsnuu mat, Lullveyalluu an
El.
fir
Considering the evidence on record, in my view, it wouid
be Just and reasonable to award under the said heads as
follows: y
loss of income for the period oft’: rnonthsV.5′-L .:’Tfrii:unjal””hasi,
awarded loss of salary for draonths. ‘Hence, tha appellant
is ‘entitled to be awarded sun’iofA’Rs.6.0oO/-,
beina the difference for the The tribunal has
not award;sd”°j,;;ariv amouat ‘°towards:V.T4attendant charges.
contendedsv ,o.that”7’3.4ti’sa:'”amount awarded towards medical
expeinsues is insl’tt$lse’of”attendantcharges, extra nourished
‘ diet. coniirafanoe a”nd”‘loss of amenities, In my view, the
A sarliefis u.nacoepta’ble. The tribunal has accepted the bills
V since the appellant could not produce
ialld hills, an amount of R.s,9t,l,.Llt.ll)!- was
…….~.~…j;….i ..| 1.1.- ….:.._J |….-4 .. – .. at .. –
iIWflE,(:.I’.;”‘.'(.l~|1iI(.Il:l lung 53″} “U3″. IIII: ‘ IIUU In 5”’ U
I an nan. AA
V._ori,By towards medical bills and not on other heads.
Considering the fact that the appellant was under
treatment for about 6 months, it is reasonable to award
towards attendant charges at the rate of Rs.10D/- per day
L
-v
pl
(day and night’) for a period of 5 months _and’4iien’ceji’tne.»
appellant is entitled to be awardedet Rs;1’S1}(iOCi)e’_’tinti§.–~ 5
the said head. During the treatrneiitperl’od,”~tiie:a§tipeiiant
has incurred expenses totiierds eittrai nou:fisi?eied–.ediet and”
hence he has to he awair1de:d:_1its.1(i>,’0tt():/if thereunder.
reasonahifl. under the head
conveyancethe(gee?of’i1vii’mseifVVa:nd attendant.
it is that on account of the injuries
susteined”~ein”theaccldent, there is shortening of the limb
result-~~in’Ioss of amenities, which deprives the
i future happy life. The loss of amenities will
it way of the appellant enjoying his future life.
Hence; it is r…esen-ebie to award under the h.e-t_1 of
” ,a’rrf1enities’ Rs.2G,Gih3;’-. The triiounai has awarded
Rs.12,000/- towards future medical treatment. The
evidence of the doctor shows that implants have to be
removed and the appellant has to urkderoo surgery. The
L-
. I’ ‘
amount awarded by the tribunal at 4_
lower side and hence an amount iaixavirardadu ‘ ;
under the said head.
9. By awarding addltio’nal’sum of there
would be a reasonable cgonrnpansautlon in Vlayour of the
appellant.
In itha i.raauit,”t:ha:_i’a.ppaaif.’V_io’allowed in part and the
lmpugned””‘~.:vaihi23rd_ In additional to
compensation’ofi:y:RS§2~,!§§,200/- awarded by the tribunal,
.-. 2.-…….. 1……
:§lI Baily Ii”Io,I
a jjpatltlony ‘l:i:Il*~1.t_ne date of deposit by the 2″‘ respondent
– +’i.nsura:n_on oohipany, which has been fixed with the liability
thaltfiibunai. The 2″‘ respondent Insurance Company,
. ” ah.alldeposit the awarded amount in the tribunal, under an
‘intimation to the appellant within a period of 3 months
” Fr-nrn hsrlnu M
u u uuuu 1 .
\
X
-‘
<3
3
B
1-
lab
1.0
Gffioe is directed to draw the modifséd “§w$rd,f’V–.-nn«V’
terms hereof. .
KS1!-