High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.Siddiq S/O Hameed, vs Sri Srinivas, Major, on 12 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri.Siddiq S/O Hameed, vs Sri Srinivas, Major, on 12 November, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER. 2010
BEFORE

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE BSREENIVASE GOWDAV

Miscellaneous First Apnea} No. 7208 of  _

Between

Sri.SidCliq

S/0. Hameed,

Aged 23 Years,

R/0. Aisa Manzil,
K.C.R0ad, Thalapady,
Mangalore Taluk, '
D.K.

    véhat, Adv.)

And

1. sri srinivas,'Majo:~,
Q,_B.'t_1askaraH,. .... 

  "R/d.VAM_011t.ethadka House,

go

 "K.eI';<11'r'1i_f1j;e'Vil1age,
_  '_?ut'c§11<

Uriivfed india Insurance Co. Ltd.,
* :.Bra1''"1eh Office: Prabhu Building,

 x _ Main Road, Puttur.

'Rep. by its Manager.
 Respondents

(By Sri. Puttige R Rarnesh, Adv. for R2,

Es’

sustained grievous injuries. Hence he filed a claim
petition before MACT, Puttur seeking compensation of

%’.15,00,000/– and the Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs. 1,56,800/– with interest at A4

4. As there is no dispute regarding _occ–urrei1.ce«.gofpiu ‘» if

accident, negligence and liabilityigof

offending vehicle the only ‘point’-that

consideration is:

Whether the4_c:>mpen..sation: awarded by
the Tribunal is just’ar1d’reIason’abie ‘or does it
call for enhancement?’-.e ‘ ‘ ~–

5. After” Counsel appearing for

the parties’anhci-perusing judgment and award of the

amfofv-….the View that the compensation

Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it

is.onl”%the_l side and therefore it is deserved to be

i V enhanced;

if ‘ The claimant has sustained fracture of left hip

..ifl’.’e2″fposing torn muscles and fracture of left femur at

fatmipper third and four others simple injuries. Injuries

%.

sustained by him are evident from wound certificate Ex
P 7, disability certificate Ex. P 8 , OP Card Ex P 9, case

sheet Ex. P 54, X–rays Ex. P 55 & P 56 and supported

by order evidence of the claimant and the

examined as PWs 1 and 2 respectively. it

Sudarshan Bhandary has stated’ that he

claimant by way of wound debridement

done on 10.12.2004 and intefriocldvng._Vn’aciling.]of left
femur with skin grafting Vsdone~._pon l3.1″2.2004.
According to him after 3 again
went to their examination
he found there”Ti’syishoifteiairig-P of 1 cm of the affected

limb, movements”are.lrestricted to 100 decree of flexion

and. ‘to pain femur and thigh the claimant is

unable walk properly and to sit with crossed

legs.'”Thereffisipennanent functional impairment of left

lower limb to the extent of 15%.

*=._AConsidering the nature of injuries, $10,000/–

awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is

if the lower side and it is deserved to be enhanced by

$5

another sum of $20,000/– and I award ?.30,000/-

under this head.

8. The claimant has produced medical bills Ex. 53

amounting to ?’.48,759/–. Therefore the Tribuna,’ixi_s-««n’st

justified in awarding only 348,000/– towards *

expenses and hence I award,~?..5C),C§_ClC)d[%’::.7; ‘A2

medical and hospital expenses. 2

9. The claimant was in-p_:atientA”‘in ” ‘

Mangaiore for about days”; :fl:Co’nsidering..the same

?.18,000/- awarded th_e incidental

expenses ._sucl”i~.’*as* _co1_iVey’aince, nourishment and

attendant”rc_ha.rgVes the lower side and 1 award

_ ?.23,QClO’;’– underdithispihead.

.10; The, -claimant claims to have been earning

mason work, but the same is not

–V estahlished’4′.Vby producing any document. In the

‘2..f*a.bsenceV”of proof of income the Tribunal has rightly

assessed his income at €3,000/– pm. He was treated

as inpatient in the hospital for 18 days. Considering

Fg,

the same he must have been under treatment and rest

for four months and I award 1″. 12,000/– towards loss of

income during laid up period as against

awarded by the Tribunal.

11. Considering the nature of the”

stated by the doctor and anV._ap”rr;ount” and
unhappiness he has to .hi’s’:vfL1ture life
?.10,000/~ awarded fltowards loss of
amenities is onthe lower ?.20,000/-

under this i

12. The is.H”aged.’ about 19 years. The

multiplier ~applieable..Vto.4liiséage group is 18. The doctor

_ has assessed permanent functional impairment of left

loiwerjévxlimb at 15%. Therefore the Tribunal has

rightly functional disability at 10% and

-Vawarded”‘§.6′-4,800/– towards loss of future income and

V’ “jthe1″e-is no scope for enhancement under this head.

13.; Considering the evidence of the doctor 1′. 10,000/–

” ‘ ” is awarded towards future medical expenses.

14. Thus the claimant is entitled for the following

compensation:

1) Pain and suffering ?.

2] Medical and incidental
Expenses

3) Incidental expenses _ ‘ ~ ‘1 23,_OQL:

4] Loss of income during} ‘ _ ”

Laid up period p ?. eV.”12.VO0O/’;- ”

5) Loss of amenitielsd’-~.._ ~.2O~,VO’C-0/–
6] Future loss of incorrre V’ _ it 64,800/–

7) Future medical expenses”-»__ ? l”‘1.0v,{)00/ —


"AH {we

 "       14,300/~

…=w,..’.~ ,—…. —–………—-..


15.  __  in part. The
judgment and    is modified to the

extend __ The claimant is entitled for

a total ‘compensationiii’—9fV12,14,800/– as against

?.i,56{,l8l0O/- al\”2va.rdedA:’by the Tribunal With interest at

enhanced compensation of €58,000/–

of claim petition till the date of

jrealisatidn. V

‘»-‘I.’.he Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

l men-hanced compensation with interest within two

it ” A’ months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

3/

‘ ‘

8

judgment. Out of the same 75% with proportionate
interest is ordered to be invested in FD. in the name of
claimant in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a

period of nine years with an option to renew oneeiiin

three years and remaining amount is ord_e%:ed” .

released in favour of the claimant _

No order as to cost.

Vb/–