nxz THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19"" DAY OF JUNE 2003
BEFORE:
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND "
BESTWEEN :
Sh. D. K. Kanihamj .
32 Years, Sic) Kambanna ' ~
No. 33, 4*' H Cross
Rukjmininagaf . _. 2 ;
Nagasandra Fzpst; ' . " % ' -
Bangaiurc-560"0j73 % ' APPEI..I.,ANT
(By Shri. Ki./1'. 1Gu;i1(1s::V:j/atF'r4$a¢f;}Xdvc.>ca1c)
: I .
i Majoxg S/o Scnzasfiekmaiah
Yuliyui; C.~..N. 'Halli -Taluk
_ . : . « , _"i"u,mkur
'A ' V .» : iiidia Insurance
--.Con:pa1iy Limited
A Rggizmaz ()fiice
' ' V -- A u " Shankamnamyana Building
dclivcsgfasd the 1::i:t;t,y~ing:-t
M. G. Road, Bangai(.>re»-25
By its Regional Manager
(Shri. c. Shankar Raddy, Advocate for Res[x>ng1t§:I't.t"":F»Va*iig'::.?.VA.
Respondent No.1 -- Served)
=F*$3l=1I¢
This Misccltancous First Apptial "
173(1) 91' the Mutur Vehicles ag2ain'$t tl1c"jta£igemg:rit and]
award dated 13.11.2005 passed in\}v!$iC_.Nu_'I'65§Xi?1(}()4f;an the 131::
:31' the Principal Motor V and Chief
J udgc, Member, Court {:,;ju:;§e.~.i,':. Mt:lmpoiilan area) W
Bangalore (sccfigi), Wtugtgzzowittg tht:. §.;laim petition ibr
nfcomptmsatiun etc.
u for hearing this day, the Court
JUDGMENT
‘ A tt:i.:ét:C()unscI for the appellant and the respondent.
K ‘ ” ” . __ A facts are:
_ tt ..;i’hc appellant was the claimant before the Meier Accidents
Ciztims Tribunai (htsrtzinaftcr rcfcrrcd to as ‘the Tribunal’ For
V A. brevity). The appellant who claimed to be 2: Civil Engineer by
5
4 ‘.
38% and he was hospitalised for six days and had
treatment for several months thereafter. The
has awarded meagre axnuunis under vanbus hzizitis; =.f§7he’V7.I’Iibunai” .
has awarded uniy a sum L1l.’Rs.3G,00{)r;¥_ towaréis
whereas, he had sufiered n1ultipte”‘£i”zz1ct1tf{-:34 heade’
injuzy and therefore, the “iu._t)e§ enhanced
substantially. The Ctyunsetlétfe-_:’ gm-,;1.1 submit that the
Tribunal has tmfvztrds miseeltaneous
ex. ndiature ificliidinvt. trims. rt and ex nses while in bus ital
pt: 1 _ _ »
under irwftmeni. ‘ téirttoiints are on the lower side and
V tI1cret%)te,e..wu:a1I(i to. be enhanced substantially. Though
the .appeIian!J’was a Civil Engineer and was earning in excess oi”
teiiitth, the Triburtat has adopted Rs.300{)i– as the
‘V monthly and has pm-needed to compute the compensation
A ftaiwairsjs 31353 at income at R.s’.9000;’- and this requires to be
substanljatiy.
Thcaugh the Tribunal has atsu appreciated” the medical
evidence and has tiatmd that the injuriezs sutfered were vital part»:
6
of the body and that it would certainly interfere in his l1a1jeti.(_ms,
whatever may be his pmtessiun and that the other ii*aett:}f’e§{“!1e:4
resulted in distiguratiml (Jr the face ut’ the app’-§ltant,i
restricted the award tuwards distxlaility antl.lt)ss.§ ot_’.t’i:}’t{ireieainii:~g i
capacity at Rs.25,0m/-. The CV1)ur1:telv__iii’>rv_iitheiitpiiellanti
thereibre submit that there was ne-»e:f3plieatien_tit7 .rii=ini(iv:iiiiii11aking i
this paltly awanl under
Insofar as the appeliant was
wholly _itl1e_:_~x_’.,*quence ofevents. The axle of
the tmckii’ i:ztielViiii”i{tlting on to the read is wholly
unexpected, circumstance that this was so, could
to attribute contributory negligence to the
the appellant had been pmceeding at :-1 sedate
Litiexpeeted event of an axle telling ell’ the vehicle
V’ iwtiieiz moving ahead would eomptetely take the rider eta two
following such 3 vehicle by surprise and it could not be
i that there was want of diligence or there was contributory
negligence in a case such as this and therefore, there was no
6
5. On a careful consideration of the ree¢)rdi”i-titndftlie
contentions, the amount of uompensation iaw.ai1_ied’ uriidef
heads is certainly on the lower and
enhancement, having due regartliiiiaihiitlie l’zui:itai_
and material on record. ‘ ttiiitarlls pain and
suftisring is etitteeafxjged, the…he_ad is towards m.m..
pecuniary the discretion of the
Tribunal to await} iéguzns on lassessmeng the same ought to
wnliumiito similaf’a}wa1’ds in identical Ifthe nature of
the injuries iiazfeiiL’»s,)nii:e_rr4ii:~/ti; amount ought to have been larger.
:ny~l’«opiiiim_1, thei”ap§1e!«lant would be entitled to additional sum
towards pain and sulliaring.
lnsc3’t’a iWas the claim towards miscellaneous expenditure during
” of treatment and eonxialeseenee is concerned; the
ilitilbunai has awarded only Rs.3000f-. The same ought to be
“iienhaneed by atleast a sum ot’Rs.7000r’- towards transport and
8
relevant multiplier are applied, the appellant would be entitled to
a sum of Rs.2,l8,880/- that is rounded oil’ to Rs.2,.l”9,D0Of~
towards loss of future earning capacity on accountA,.ea.Fjgli:$aljiliity’.
After deducting a sum of Rs.25,()00:’-, the J
entitled toRa.l.,94,000/’- underthis t
Insofar as the dedueiion ‘t;.xii’t”w-M9131′ V of
compensation on the fo1)tingt’iiiitl:at vviais’ etmtributory
negligence on the part of sustained. The
manner in which ‘:z_<:eidentii':a.s occurred would clearly indicate
that there _l'i(.'rv diiiigenee, on the part of the appellant
rnennler in i\iri'\I'lr'i'€.'.'.'l"i'itl2(.$ accident has occurred has taken the
by surprise, as it would any other person
in i plaee; "fheretom, it cannot be said that there was
'eontxibtitoiEy negligence on the part of the appellant. The
of 25% of the compensation amount is not warranted.
appeal is accordingly allowed in terms as above. The
" iappellatst is held entitled to additiorsal compensation of
%