v RND
»II; §A§fififlKfiMAR H 94
'"=»_ BANGALORE*56O 079
_ 1 _
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARSSISSS SI BA$GA;§§fi }
SSTSS THIS THE 3d?_SS§.SS MAI SSSS }.uV
THE HON'BLE SSS JUSTISS S V~SASASSIHNA
MISCELLANEOUS SIRS? APPE$L §$Ai$399/2GO6{MV)
BETWEEN _f: "I
SHASSIWSSMSR S¥S'RS$A9PA=w"
AGSDI23_YEASS,'SOSD&ITScGUR
SHINGA'SENDRAfPOST n ,
BANGALORE S0UTS{'_' '
'a - 2 V. . APPELLANT
{Sf SSI.SSRIPAS V SHASTSI, ASv., )
NO-5§6, SRI GURU
I1?" CROSS, III STAGE
"4?? BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
'2'*IHS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE co. LTD.,
NO.40, II FLOOR, LAKSHMI COMPLEX
K R ROAD, FGRT
oSP.vANIvILAs HOSPITAL
BRNGRLORE~2
BY ITS MANAGER
(BY SR1 M NARAYANAPPA, 3bvg,_§oR"Re2; E
NOTICE T0 R-1 IS SISPENSED WITH} '"'"
THIS MFA Is FILED flfS,i73(i} OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGM,NT-§NB AwARatbATED 18.4.2006
PASSED IN MvQjN0;a0;?;20o4 ON THE FILE OF Tag
XI ADDL. JUaG3;,c0uRr_oE.sMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT, i'Ms?RcPoL:TIA§, Ragga, BANGALQRE,
(sCCa.N0;a2;;,' 9aRTLY~_ ALLOWING THE CLAIM
@ETITiéN»,)FoRf* COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHAR¢EMENT*QE CQ§EN$AT:0N.
TRIS ..R?FERL * HAVING BEEN HEARD .AND
REs3RvaD= FOR gORDERS, THIS may, THE COURT
Pacxaumcaa-$33'FOLLOWING:
Hwfi U D G M E N T
" _«THi3_ §fi@eal is filed by the claimant
seéki§g'&hhancement of compensatian awarded by
", the tfibunal in respect of injuries suffered
°by" him in a road traffic accident that
'V "bccurred on 9.?.2GO4 at about 6.55 a.m. when
he was proceeding on his two wheeler bearing
fly
.,.TREs9oNp$NTs,
registration No.KAOl-S~5837 in- :f:ent._ ef».l
R.$.Faetory, Electronic City,,BahQelQre'when,al
-3-
Tempo Traveller bearing Eegietretien fie.KAO2-
C--6768 driven. by'«its' delve: pin a rash and
negligent menne:;"~f:daeheen [teeainst the
claimantfe vefiiele}_ The tribunal, taking into
considetatiefi the feet that the claimant had
susteined the fciiogingfe injuries;
_Pein in
* Fxeetfire ef right femur
Ffaeture of both benee of left leg
the left pelvis with
A":§lfteeture of left ocitabulam with
.'@osterior dislocation of hip
Fracture of 4"'and 5" metacarpal in
the left hand
Head injury with left hemiplegia
below
about 4 cm.
Lacerated wound
the chin
sum of Rs.l,?5,0GQ/-- for replaeement ef hip;
but the tribunal was ritgvht .in"..Va§;:;~.«:aiag
meager sum of Re:8,00QZ;ien1y en the head of
future medical eXeeneee§t"ieSiniiarly, it is
contended by the
tribunai at ifiejie §ery aaah G5 the lower side
whereas, what wee aeseeeea by the doctor was
18.4%, 1. that a sum of
Rs.i5i@G§/ftawareegetewards loss of amenities
is fiery meager and therefore, the cempeneation
rgranted bf the tribunal ought ta be enhanced.
=4;_"Per contra, it is submitted by the
learnedlpeeunsel for the 2nd respondent --
V4 insurance company that just and proper
Vrteenfiensation has been awarded by the tribunal
E”*;h_and this appeal does not require any
interference at the hands of this Court.
….3_
awarded in addition to what has been grantédt
by the tribunal.
6. As far as Hlthe “futfir€Vrnfiedical’
expenses is concerned;”*it’rhas ‘domes in the
evidence of ?.W.2lthateageufiief”Rs.1r90:900/-
would be neeeeear§ fer tne renewal of implants
and. for¥ycfrreetien,”oii_defermity; However,
there is no evidence en record as to whether
the lKafipellante’_ai§lt undergo surgery for
correction Qf deformity of left humerus bone
‘”wl an§*tne:eforé; the compensation on the head of
*future”mefiieai expenses can be restricted to
leniy refiefial of implants of the right and left
tibiaiijand in lieu of Rs.8,0oo/~– awarded by the
[r.tribunal, a sum of Re.25,000/– is awarded on
iliithis head. y%%i/~/
-9-
7. As far as percentage. ‘_ _:
is concexned, the tpibunslizhas ltaken’finto_
consideration the fact”‘*~.£1z3t loothii’
bones of left l6§.,,.€tn«:fi'””‘§Etv?駥;il?e o’f”‘~fVeVEmur and
fracture of and that
dislocation”??? position
and the whole body
cii sa?f5il1″tijv:’ of l 8 . 4 % as stat ed
by Redd”)! in his
examinat”i.on-~.in_-Chilef . Considering the fact
t;’i§_._s’i::»_’—i.Athe Vola~imant has suffered multiple
my opinion, the percentage of
would be 18% to the whole body
rathezfi. than 10% as assessed by the tribunal
.a_né3_« taking into consideration the income of
the appellant being Rs.3,00G/*- per month, a
sum of Rs.37,200/*(3,{)0Oxl2xl5xl8;/M30} is
-11..
?he enhanced @ompe5satiofi=’V}_o€~
Rs.l,76,40G/~ would carry infeféat @E%5@,a.E
The judgment afifi_a@a;dHcf.fh§ tribunal in
all other respects ié lefitlufidgfifiufbed.
Accérdinglyg’ £fié«lé§p§al is allowed in
part withdfifi afi§ ozfieg as to costs.
Sd/~
Judge