INTTHBHKHICOURT(H?KARNKLMfl&ATEflNGALORE
DATED THIS THE 281"?' DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
BEFORE $
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE RSREENIVASE
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 8077 of
BETWEEN
Sri. C M Gangadharaiah,
S/0. Mariyappa,
Aged about 41 Years, _ _
Residing at No.27"/'. lst Main',-»..V
8"' Cross, Panchasheela Nagafa.
Mooclalapalya, Naga_rabhapVi-----_.Posh
Bangalore -- 560 O7'?,;"'~.. -._ .
... Appellant
&
" H Pailaks'l1a'ppa,_AdVs.)
ANDRV. l
1. V . _VM/sL'Thim1§'nal.a Milk Products (P) Ltd.,
, By its Managing Director, '
' 2-Mr. rahmanandam,
_ .,v}.:{)J.'O;'V'tj{" Kadivedu,
V * ¢,C'hilla3;£_u:' Nellor,
' A11d:rap'g:Pradesh.
z briental Insurance Co. Ltd..
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
" Regional Office,
Leo Shopping Complex,
MG Road Cross, M.G. Road,
Bangalore -- 560 001.
Respondents
(By Sri. O. Mahesh, Adv. for R2,
R. 1 ~ Served)
This MFA is filed 13/ S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and award dated: 22.2.2008 passed
No.552/2007cnithetnec£the>snItAddt.iudge;coun;
of Small Causes, Member, MACT–4, Metropo1ita.i1.._Ai%ea,_
Bangaiore, [SCCI-I.No.4), partly allowirig the ‘
petition for compensation and seeking’e1t1’h–ai1oement.vof . pp
compensation.
This appeal eomirigon for1;I’earing’,,.”_thi’s”
Court, delivered the fol1ov;rii’ig;
I.”-t
____…………_…__.,__
,aDGMERT
This appeal is Abydntiiie fo.1*”enhancement of
compensation
E i
2. Vvt”Hearf1i;, appeal&”_is”‘”admitted and with the
consent’ of appearing for the parties. it
is taken t’1~p_i’or_fI–na1_ disposal.
E*Ford’t1f1e sake of convenience parties are referred to
‘as Vtiiey–,are.i’referred to in the claim petition before the
Emma?
4. a Brief facts of the case are:
That on 21~Lt1–06, when the claimant was
_.;%proceeding in his motor cycle bearing registration
g/..
No.KA-4l–E–4249 and was Waiting for signal at Ring
Road Junction, Kanakapura road, the driver of lorry
bearing registration No. AP–26–U~91aO came viri’.::a’a.rash
and negligent manner and dashed
cycle. As a result, the claimant fell downandl
injuries. Hence, he filed a
MACT, Bangalore, .s’ee__k1’ng’7,_ “‘com;jei1§,=a_tViofi’§ it ;
?.25.00,000/–. The inipugrledifiijudgment
and award has of Rs.1,59,-400/–
and rounded’.i.txof interest at 6%
pa. of compensation
aWa1fde_dV’AbyF”tl*;e;_ is in appeal
seeking ‘.eI1ha11e’en1ent– –compensation.
5. .. As tlzere-is no “dispute regarding occurrence of
negligenoe and liability of the insurer of the
ifehicle, the only point that remains for my
e0«nsid’ei*.at’ion in the appeal is:
Whether the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper or does it call for
enhancement?
6. After hearing the learned Cd’unsel for the parties
and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the
View that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
not just and proper, it is on the lower side andvth:e1’e.fore
it is deserved to be enhanced.
7. The claimant has sustained the fol.loi£i7ing’:.injtu1*ies–t:_
Fracture of left lower end
crush injury to right foot’.wit,h fract_ure,’~
metacarpal and V jfiiiltiple afoot:
dislocation. V’ H l ;
Injuries sustained. by evident from the
wound certificate summaries ‘Mam
report — Ex.P.1 1, case sheet ~
EX.P. l3″t)y oral evidence of the claimant
and doctor examined as P.Ws.1 and respectively.
-».~._doctor has stated in his evidence that he
“e1»iarnine§ii’;_ the claimant on 21-11-06 and he had
sustained the aforesaid injuries. He was treated with
A lvlvotirid debridement and wire fixation under
lfianesthesia and discharged on 25–11~O6 and thereafter,
fie
he was under follow up treatment as out patient. On
recent examination, he found that the fractures are
united with certain amount of osteoarthritis of right foot
and there is restriction of movements. He asseseed the
disability of 27% to the right lower limb
whole body.
8. Considering the natureflxof
awarded by the Tribunal.»towardlst.plain
on the lower side and it is to enhanced by
another 15.000/» an}: I iavvetd’tv.?’j.izio.ooo/– under this
head.
9. medical bills for
?.45,00″0._/’L; for €10,000/–. He was
treated as in”p”at.i_er1t for about 5 days. Considering the
‘ — awarded by the Tribunal towards
‘rnehdicalbajnd incidental expenses is on the lower side
and is ‘deserved to be enhanced and 1 award
i ,?.”a5,oo0/- under this head.
10. Claimant claims to have been earning €8,500/–
per month by working as a Wireinan at M / s. Chandra
Electrical Enterprises and in support of his contention,
he has produced his salary certificate at EX.§:..’8p.8.l’1d
examined his employer as P.W.3, but
certificate with regard to nature of leaVe._a_n-dp
days of leave availed. However, considering”naturepof ‘
injuries, ?.9,0oo/– awarded by’:h’e- Trib;v17hVaVl4_ it t¢}w§1.;1g~r+
loss of income during laid period and proper
and there is no scop-elfor enhauiiicey i _
11. Consi.der;ii’;g they ijinjuries, disability
anmainount of discomfort and
“unhappiness h as to undergo for the rest of his
life–,.. awarded by the Tribunal towards loss
.of amenities is just and proper and there is no scope for
. ‘e_nhanceVIn.lenit’ under this head.
A V_.~’i’he}.V*claimant has failed to establish his contention
AA that-fiter sustaining injuries. he has discontinued his
it ’employment. Even nature of injuries sustained do not
suggest that he cannot continue his employment in
Q7′
future. The Tribunal disbelieving the salary shown in
the salary certificate — EX.P.8 and pay slip — Ex.P.15
and evidence of P.W.3 working as Manager in Chandra
Electrical Enterprises and by assessing his incoine at
$3,000/– per month and considering
caused to whole body at 10% as
stated by the doctor at 27% to right} iimhbdaridd’:1t§i%1vsto ‘
the whole body has awarded
g ‘ . -. ‘i ‘ I: ‘v:
of future income. Theisaine is Just’ and proper and
there is no scope for–..¢f’1hanc«31nei1t,
Thusg. for the following
Com;pens’a’tion: l
11 r y Pam a11d”s1_iffering %. 40,000/-
2)” ‘ 1VIedica;’._an_d’ incidental
. _ V V-expenses
__3} _ Towar.d.s’1oss of income
f ‘gduring laid up period %. 9,000/-~
_ Towards loss of amenities ?. 15,000/–
“*E3’}” w.F11’ture loss of income 50.400/ —
/’H
55,000/-
/’H
3. 1.69,400/-
~ Rounded of to Rs.1,70.000/-.
‘ Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the
“Judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the
$2”
extent stated herein above. The eiaimant is entitled for
an additional compensation of ?. 10,000/~ with interest
at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till of
realisation.
The Insurance Co. is gdi”reeted., to the »7
enhanced compensation v8I.I’l’lO’tV11.’i'[_””V_V1’iZ1’1 i1_1te1″vest
two months from the dat’e.s/.e:-of.receipt_:Of of this
judgment and the to be feleased in
favour of the claimant.
is. Sri, ‘:.is_fip.ermitted tomifile Vakalath within
four We.e1_<'s~ Zthisjidatet; « –. . .
No order as to .costs_ H
_____ _. ge
I1igI1*