IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1 1m DAY OF JANUARY,'
PRESENT " '
THE HoN'ELE MR. JUSTICE' N.*'i{;"i>';A'.!4 ILr,'_'_A.V V
AND
THE IIEi0N'BLE MR. JUSTIC_E B.s1§E.ENnrAEE _
M.P'.A. No. 34*7E»D§5f 2006
BETWEEN: % M K
Sri. S. M. Ajjaiah,
S/0. Gure.jVa.sav£u'ah,'~ ' V V_ I
Aged a1jOu'§;.D.3g y;3ar=is;" *
D0dda:gI§1I1iVHdsp4it?aI_; .,
Gubbi * T
"F-urnkur ~ ' '
- ~ g Appenant
5 D {By Kenipegowda of ACC Associates, Adv.)
Sidaaxinga Murthy,
S / O; S. Shankarappa,
Manjunatha Transport,
~. 2"? Cross, Vinayakanagar,
. , *' Tumkur.
(OWIIEY of the Vehicle KA-- 13-8880}
' Deced. by LRS.
____,_..,~.»-
Z/..»--»/"""'
Smt. Sudha,
W/o. Late T. S. Siddalinga Murthy,
Aged 45 years.
Mr. Prajwal,
S/o. Late '1'. S. Siddalinga Murthy,
Aged : 18 years.
Both are residing at
Manjunatha Transport, .,
2%' Cross, Vinayakanagar, A
T urnkur. 7
Oriental Insurance Co.
J. C. Road, TL1II_1kL11', V ._ '
Rep. by its Bran'e'n._l\/ia'nager.,._ ,
(insurer of Vehicle I€A4--l_3+888O) A _
" . it 1 A Respondents
(By..sr1g_'o;?Igeya.ta_§fan.i.:sttfs. H. Amn, Advs. for
' R.'1.j{a) 8é:_(b]_. M. V. Poonaeha, Adv. for R2)
This *MFA._tsatlitiiea-II/s. 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judginentsa-and awardsdated 27.09.2005 passed in MVC
NO.6§4-[1998-. on the" file of the Pr}. Civil Judge (SR.DN)
an,_Cté.Addl,Vp MACT_,____.'I'umkur, partly allowing the Claim
_ "Petition folrveonipensation and seeking enhancement of
V' ' soinpe'nsation .
coming on for Hearing, this day,
N. I?_'atiJ:J, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
“award dated 27.09.2005 passed in we Nessa/1996 on the
W
/ .,/A
file of the Pr}. Civil Judge (SR.DN] and Acldl. MACT, Tumkur,
[hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for breVit_y’},l:’fo_lI’1′–VVthe
ground that, the compensation of
by the Tribunal with interest. at.:8%_pe1j: T
date of petition till the date
claim of the appellant for / ‘–,–,Vis%_:in’aVd’equate. V
2. The brief facts of –«
That, on 12A._1O.19’9V5,:l’_at noon when the
appellant vehicle bearing
Gubbi to Tumkur
near ‘bridge, it dashed against the
roadside baiiyari rash and negligent driving by
the impact, the appellant sustained
»grieVot.is«.injVuries. It is the case of the appellant that on
account’ the injuries sustained in the accident he has
spent. Jflconsiderable amount towards conveyance,
it not”;-rishing food, attendant charges and medical expenses.
Therefore, he filed a clai petition claiming compensation
MW//,…a
of Rs.10,00,000/» against the respondents. The said claim
petition had come up before the Tribunal on 27.09.2005.
The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel’~.on:l’b_oth
sides and after considering the oral
evidence available on record, __has_ aliowedel-‘I,thegelaimu ‘ i.
petition of the appellant
compensation of .intere.st”‘:~–at”8% per»
annum from the date of petition”p_’till”-.the date. of: payment.
The appellant has presentedthis on the ground
that the said.’ the Tribunal is
inadeqjliate it enhancement by modifying the
judgment V Tribunal.
3. ..«.§:gWel’*have.l “l1ea_1_fd,the learned counsel appearing on
both..sides..
4. careful perusal of the judgment and award of
what emerges is that the Tribunal has erred
.._«in._V’as”*arding only Rs.40,000/– towards pain and agony
which is inadequate f reason that the appellant was
/”T
inpatient in the hospital and the doctor has found the
following disabilities:
1)
ii]
iii}
iv]
V)
complete and permanent loss 4_
right eye with right corneal opaej.tyf;, ‘
with no bone flap”, “grain “felt. «ptlsating
underneath; t’ it 3 h it
Impaired verbal anVd,V:vis_ual.n1.en1’o1’yV} for recent
events; _ _ _
Pain and tenVcierr1:’ess__soififirz fthe Cranietomy
would; ” ” ” V’
Recu’:f19e_n’t eoisode_s of iddiness.
And due to loss of vision of
right eye.r “failed to consider the nature
and duration .ot;treatme_r;t4, pain and agony suffered by the
dxi1’r’ing_____tk1e treatment period. Therefore we
ideemy Rs.50,000/m towards pain and agony
it/«~ awarded by the Tribunal.
5. “.T1’ibuI1¢’:11 has rightly awarded just and
Xreiasonable compensation of Rs. 35,619/- towards medical
W
expenses which is based on the medical bilis produced
and therefore it does not call for interference.
6. T he Tribunal has erred in awardingllé’
10,000/– towards conveyance, noufishing.
attendant charges which is inadelquate theareasond ‘
r’
the appellant has undergone treatrrient for”-5
months in the hospital. He have spent considerable
amount towards conV’ey’a–r1ce., food etc. Taking
into consideration this.._aspe’o_t :»of”.”the’:-Tirriatter we award
Rs.2o,000/-_Vr§ri¢{a~ :héa said”h¢5,a.V’id” ‘
7. The justified in not awarding any
compensatioi1._,toWards vioss of income during laid up
Carefullvplerusal of EX. P 9 salary certificate
–disc1§ps¢sj«ig;’~§$sjs.salary of the appellant at Rs. 3068/- p.m.
of same Rs.40/– is to be deducted towards
Jprofessional tax. Then the net salary Comes to Rs.3028/-
-‘it is not in dispute that the appellant was inpatient
it “in: the hospital for more than 3 months. He might have
taken at–least one more month rest. Taking this factor
into consideration we deem it fit to award —
towards loss of income during laid up period;
8. The Tribunal has aWar”(i’edl’ T.
compensation towards loss of fiiture ear-ni’ng«. ‘b–a,it..Vynot
awarded any compensation~»..o:’y:toWards’~. df’1.v:4ainenitiesV,
disability, discomfort, and is not in
dispute that on accoiilntly sustained the
appellant underxyent mhpiéitient for a period of
3 monthsf disability at 30% to
right eye: would affect his future career.
Taking this ‘i’n’to:_”..’iconsideration we deem it fit to
awaitedVRs60,600./,:___trawards loss of amenities, discomfort
‘and..fut11re”unhappiness including loss of future earning.
9.A regard to the facts and circumstances as
‘a’iaove, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed
inpart and the judgment and award dated 27.09.2005
-passed in MVC No.694/199$ on the file of the Pri. Civil Judge
M
Z
(SRDN) and Addl. MACT, Tumkur is hereby modified. The
Break up is as under:
1. Towards pain and sufferings Rs’;
2. Medical expenses it
3. Towards conveyance, Nourishifig A.
food and Attendant charg’es__ V’ V
4. Towards loss of income during
laid up period T” 1 12/-
5. Towards loss of
Future unhappiness” – ” ‘V Rs. 60,000/–
5fif; ii;1*u;a;.p«e i;==d Rs.1,77,73I/~
The ‘-appeilaiitpisfie-rititied for a total compensation of
Rs.1,77,7V3v1x/~v.as Rs. 1,39,619/– awarded by the
Trib1~ina_i’1vith ir’1’tere.st at 6% pa. from the date of petition
‘.7 ‘tiiI the ‘d_a’te’ realization.
hepiiiiisdfirance Company is directed to deposit the
“V.,’enhaI’Ie_ed compensation of Rs.38,112/~ together with
“‘d:Vi11t_e”1’£;*st. within a period of four weeks from the date of
‘ iwreceipt of copy of the j ent.
/’/A
The enhanced compensation of Rs.38,112/–
interest shall be released in favour of the
such deposit by the Insurance Company ._
Office is directed to draw the :acc{}rjd1I1g,1_V§’