IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBEREOQB
BEFORE "
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREEN1V?3'S_EiE..g}{3cIfD.AVVvE
MISC. FIRST APPEAL OE .m1vy_
BETWEEN
Sri Siraj, '
S/0 K.A. Ighade.-.~, '
Aged . " .
R/a Kajry11;"H61i'SC. --
SooI'j1j1jc'Pg)S1;«:.; A "
Ma11galorcVTS1nk. _ * - APPELLANT
(By $ri:4_'_P.
E f Assurance 00., Ltd.,
'V Ha_ujSc, Nelljkayi Road,
_ T RB. Dcspandc, adv.)
... RESPONDENT
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.3.2007 PASSED
A IN MVC NO. 698/C2005 ON THE FILE OF THE 1 ADDL.
DIUSTRICT JUDGE, MEMBER, MAC’I’–II, DAKSHINA
KANNADA, MANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
%
the liability of the Insurance “tissue
that remains for my considerationvyéxis. ‘4 whether the
compensation awarded A’ J’VI’1’ib*un” at J
proper or calls for miharieement. . ‘ . V ‘ >
Aflzer hearing for the parties
and perusafiflie of the Tribunal, 1
am of awarded by the
is on the lower side,
i’ has stated that after susta. i 3
he was~–._i1:tai1ediately admitted to A.J. Hospital,
‘and”he was treated by Dr. Sudheer Hegde
i ” “doctors.C.T. Scan was done.
i The appellant has examined Dr. Sudhcer Hegde as
* he stated in his evidence that he has found the
V ‘iioflowing injuries:
“He had sub congectile haemorrhage and pupiiiary
reaction was abnormal and fundus examination dis was
3/
pale and FR was dull, foveal reflux was
abnormal i.e., perception of: light
lamina papyraces on right A
valve superial orbital on.”r.i.g.ht._ greater
wing of sphenoid.”_, . V’ l’
The issued by A.J.
hospital treated as inpatient in the from 9/2/2005 to
22 final-..t.d5agnosis, he was found to have
optic nerve injury, fracture right
‘ Anterior Cranial Fossa Base, Post
” FCSF Rhinorrhoca and right Temporal Polar
hacmatoma with post traumatic meningitis.
d X right clavicle, fracture distal radius”.
Injuries sustained by the appellant was also
supported by Ex.P-71 to Ex.P.76, original case sheet
%’
and x-ray films at Ex.P-76. rconsidefingt a1’=
injuries Rs.50,000/-
pain and suffering is it is
deserved to be 10,000/-
accordingly, I the same.
The rhinos medical bills for
Rs.34,74lQ awarded Rs.-40,000/–
which is on the lower
sidevvvtherr-,foreVV_.it to be enhanced by another
5,(_)0_O/-,l4″‘accc5rdi11t§JyVl’lVaward Rs.45,000/– towards the
has stated that he was earning
by Working as a Mastery and he has
.. ll his employer to substantiate the same, the
considering the same and assessed his income
2 that Rs.4,500/– pm. and considering that the appellant
was under treatment and rest for a period of two
months, it has awarded Rs.9,000/- towards loss of
‘E/_
income during laid up period. nature ‘ _
of job, it cannot be said that he
days in a month and thwereforel
assessed at Rs.400{fi_)/– itlieainatme of
injuries he must and treatment for
a period of lost his income
during – awarded by
the ‘ enhanced by another
Rs.3ooo;*-e p12,ooo/- under this head.
theivnatuxe of injuries Rs.25,000/-
towardsylflloss of amenities is just and proper
L… V unotcafl for enhancement.
doctor who treated the appellant has stated
it by V’ .. that appellant has suifered 30% disability, whether
to particular limb or whole body is not
it In the absence of the same if 30% stated by the
doctor is considered as disability caused to a particular
limb, 1/3 of it would be the disability caused to the
whole body. The appellant was working asa
nature of job depends upon… physicat’ and ‘ .
strength, after sustaining
cannot be said that he to d
with the same capacity or——@n°t1_1e income and
therefore it isaufit towards
future loss at Rs.4,000/-
which ‘~ 4: (10% of
the of Rs. 1,24,000/- awarded
«is enhanced by another sum of
with 6% intexest on the enhanced
H from the date of petition till the date of
U
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
= .. -fientire compensation amount within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this award.
%_
Accordingly, the appeal is
and Award passed by the fiis; ‘
extent stated hercinabove I16 a.s’ t<); .