IN TIIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST. 2010
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE~--€J§r_j(Jl:\.§?':l'f?$"
Misceiiazaeous First Appeal No. K
Between
Sri N Sharath
S / o T. Nagaraj
Aged about 19 years _
R/0 No: Hosakrmduwada
Davanagere Talulif _ '_ _ "
Since Guardianship is not
discharged, Representedeé l '
by Natural VC%ua§r_dianf -
Sri T....I*E.ag:1;'raj - V I _
S / o 7Thyaranayaka-- V. A * ; it
Appellant
'u3y«tsfi.-- 'Qisiddiararnajah, Adv.)
And
The "QrientaI"lnsurance Co. Ltd.,
Deepthi Building, Pallimukku
' [(3p.p. Coachin Hospital)
M'.G;-Read, Ernakulam, Keraia
I_?.ep_resented by its Divisional Manager
AQC. Gadgets 8: Appliances Pvt. Ltd.,
" Door No.6{)3/B, Mangala Layout
' Urlandy Puttur, D.K.
Represented by its Managing Director
Sri. Nelson Pavunny
Respondents
(By Sri. H S Lingaraj, Adv. for R1,
Notice to R2 is dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 17 3(1) of Act
against the judgment and award dated 11.i2,72OO8
passed in MVC No. 850/2007 on the file of A;_ddi_tional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court–1, DaVang”ereV;~.1:§a}%t1y’.
ailowing the claim petition for compe–nsatioVrie-
seeking enhancement of compensation. _. ~~ . ”
This appeal coming on for
the Court, delivered the foi10wing:__ ‘ « 7 *
JUDi’.?;_;._’!,l,I’EN’-Ti: V
This appeal is seeking
enhancement of compelnsationi. V
consent -or Co-arisel “appearing for the parties, it
is taken” f0rV’1’ina¥,_ disposal.
3; l:]_3rief facts ,Q_f__the case are:
25.10.2006 when the claimant and
were travelling in T ractor~Trai1er No.KA-
7/;i’~.l13;_V and KA-03/T-370 from Hiriyur to
A Agfrlosayalanadu Viilage on NB 4 near Kolikengannas
lfifarm a truck bearing registration N0.KA-21/6967 came
%’
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed agaisnt the
tractor–trailer, as a result claimant sustained injuries.
Hence, he filed a claim petition before MACT, Davarigere
seeking compensation of
Tribunal has awarded compensatiouef”
with interest at 6% p.a.
4. As there is no disputeiiregardingl.o_cctirrence of V
accident, negligence” and _1i’abilit§-vi/l”bf_pthe’lnsurer of the
offending vehicle the it remains for
consideration’ ‘
—- _ll”‘Whetheivtliev’cornpensation awarded by
the_’1’ri:’ounal is st and reasonable or does it
for enhai1ce;n_ent?’
5. _ _ After learned Counsel appearing for
V’ , parties perusing the judgment and award of the
of the view that the compensation
the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it
A is o’n_:t_he lower side and therefore it is deserved to be
i’ “enl1anced.
l 6. The claimant has sustained the following injuries:
&’
i) Fracture of 2%, 3″‘. 4th and 5″! metatarsais
on left side;
ii) Lacerated wound over right knee;
iii) Closed head injury with contusion”‘of«lbx’rainit
Injuries sustained by him are evidenti—-fro’ml’f:wound–«..
certificate, discharge card
evidence of the claimantand the-..doctoifeégamined last’;
PWS 7 and 6 respectively. Fiidiscloses
that the claimant V Bapuji Hospital.
Davanagere of road traffic
accidentgonv was referred to
him for- POP boot applied
left ‘0 secondary suturing of the
Woundxwas of wound occurred leading
~§’.ggping of “Wound. On 04.10.2006 skin grafting was
0 .»ldone.._>”Cn”‘O2.11.2006 he was discharged from the
16.08.2008 claimant had gone for
assessment of permanent/ partial physical impairment.
.Vip5’i’t”A_«that time he complained of pain on weight bearing
over left foot, limitation of motion in the left foot,
limitation of motion of right knee. Mild 0 to 110 degree
%,_
flexion. X ~ray was taken which shows old fracture
2″”. 3″, 41″ and 5*” metatarsal bones with malunion and
evident of secondary Osteoarthritiis seen inirtarso
metatarsal ‘joints on left side. He
permanent physical disability.
7. Considering the nature
awarded by the Tribuna} towards its-uuffering
on the lower side aridit to be”‘e11*hanced by
another sum of Rs.30,000/~
under this
8. ” medical bills for
Rs. 1V’:?,6:=30/4 tanjajtiaecrfibufiai has awarded Rs.22,500/–
towards’rnedicallllaridliiieidental expenses which is not
If 1._7_,t550/– is deducted towards medical
‘ Vllbiilg;._$511lvy.l:Rs.4i,85O/- remains for incidental expenses
llwlhich is’j_ on the lower side. Considering nature of
injuriles and duration of treatment I award Rs.15,000/~~
” towards incidental charges.
9. The claimant was a student and he was looked
after by his parents leaving their regular work for 67
$3.
days. Therefore it is just and proper to award
Rs.10,000/– towards loss of income of the parents
during treatment period and 1 award the same.
10. Considering the disability stated
10% and an amount of discomfort and he it ‘
has to undergo in his future loss
academic year it is just’V”w-rand ‘proper award
Rs.50,000/ — towards ..y_1fioss.~i or A ‘inconvenience
caused to his edueationai disability as
against Rs.3~i/ .. ;i’ribur1ai towards
loss of A V
11. .’ entitled for the following
compensation? i
V1} Pajinvarid suffering Rs. 30,000/–
‘=”2) Medical expenses Rs. 17,650/–
–._3)t “incidental expenses Rs. 15,000 /-
‘ ‘V ” of income of parents
A — j Euring treatment period Rs.10,000/–
, Loss of amenities,
‘* Disability, loss of educational
Career etc. Rs. 50,000/–
Total Rs1,22.650/-
Q5,”
12. Accordingiy the appeal is allowed in part. The
judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the
extend stated hereinabove. The claimant is enti’ti:ed.for
total compensation of Rs.1,22,650/~
Rs.5-4,500/– awarded by the Trihunal _wit-h::’~interestt..
6% pa. on the enhanced com:p’ensati:on’ei6’8}-e1:$QV,/A?
from the date of clair;-i gpetitiont’ till
realisation.
13. The insurance ‘directed to deposit the
enhanced co:npensatio.n’~ I within two
months from of receipt of iavcopy of this order.
14. Odut or compensation Rs.50,000/–
with proportionate._iriterest is ordered to be invested in
Vnarh’e”of__the claimant for a period of 5 years
and -wre1nair’_1ing–._amount is ordered to be released in
favoiir of A
x T Novorder as to cost. Sd
Tudqé
Vthvbp