IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS Tim 26th may or OCTOBER, 2010
BEFORE '
THE EON' BLE MR. JUSTICE .
Misceganeous First Apnea; Np. 9562.'bf".éG98':fnW¢j " as
Between
Sri. Sunil Jain. " _
S/0. Sri. J. K. Sukan Raj,
Aged about 29 years, __ _V
Residing at No.282,v 36.? C_1*oss',~- is
J ayanagar, ~ - r 1
Bangalore.
Appellant
(By.sa..;<..z~: erasaé. Adv.)
a
Major, , . ' _ "
S/o. K... Ramaciaandra Rao.
4; Residing atV'No.55/44, 431 Cross.
Main, 8'*~--Block, Jayanagar,
O' ' V. Bangalore.
. Insurance Co., Ltd..
Srinivas Mansion,
N0A.3.64/1, 101-B Main,
3¥§'3~B1ock, Jayanagar,
~ A' ' Bangalore ~-- 560 001.
H By its Divisional Manager.
Respondents
(By Sri. C. R. Ravishankar, Adv. for R2,
R1 — notice ciispensed with v/0. dated 08.10.2010}
@’
This MFA is filed U/S. 173(1) of MV Act against
the Judgment & award dated 01/04/2008 passed in
MVC No.4680/2006 on the file of the XIII Addl. Judge,
Court of Small causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan
Area, Bangalore, (SCCH.No.l3), partly allowing “the
claim petition for compensation and–._p’vse’e}i–:ing
enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on far”
the Court, delivered the following: A f; ‘
JUDQMERQ
This appeal is by’ seeking
enhancement of
2. Heard; and with the
consent of learned Cot.i1isell’:Aappearing for the parties it
is tal'<..en:
3. -. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to
” alre’_referred to in the claim petition.
I $4.; .. of the case are:
on 10.07.2005 when the claimant was
driving; the car on T. Mariyappa road, Bangalore a
l”‘._VVlViahindra Scorpio bearing registration No.KA-05-MQ
“0444 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
W:
against his car as a result the claimant sustained
grievous injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition ‘before
MACT, Bangalore seeking compensatio.fi<«.. ' _ of
%.15,oo,ooo/– and the Tribunal has
compensation of Rs.2,67,6OO/5.-with at 6%] M' t'
5. As there is no dispute regarding the” ;
accident, negligence and “the:_I:r1sut’er of the
oflendiug vehicle Hrernains for
eonsideration’.isV:\ A t it V
awarded by
the T1’ibunai~-is ju’..st’a1′.1.d reasonable or does it
_ for ‘eithar1eemenit?_., V V
6. iearned Counsel appearing for
the_partiesd the judgment and award of the
xI the View that the compensation
V Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it
bison vthe:-iolwer side and therefore it is deserved to be
enhanced.
A 5′ The claimant has sustained the following injuries:
1) Fracture mid shaft of right femur;
g.
ii) Lateral crush fracture fibula head —~ right,
fracture nasal bone and nasal bridge skin
‘ laceration in RTA.
Injuries sustained by him are evident from wound
certificate Ex. P 6, discharge summaries Es. 8
and P 16, CT Scab Ex P 9, clinical ‘notes E2_~:;;”‘P«’
card Ex. P 11, and supported by oral of by
claimant and the doctor examined A. Pas-,PW’s
respectively. PW 2 Dr. W;iO«.__l.\/Iotianllinphirs
stated that himself and (firthopedic
Surgeon) examined A the hospital on
11.07.2006 ar1d.V_.f0urid”th::e: fo’11owing 1:_;¢;ug~1es:
if middle 1 /3 of right thigh with
.te11cfie:f:i;:ss,_ ‘ ‘
tenderness over proximal 1/3 of
ltibiaf’ V
of right femur showed fracture of right
.p -._C’I’ scan right knee showed rnultisegrnent
fracture of tibral tuberustly, Abrasion
frae’tU§re of posterio medical aspect of medical
.–__condyle of right femur, fracture of head and neck
~ V of right fibula. CT brain plain done showed nasal
“bone fracture. On examination he found the
following disability:
i) Permanent scar over right thigh and
upper leg
ii) Mild limp on walking;
iii) Terminal large of movements at right
knee restricted;
iv] Gross antero–polteor laxity mild
mediolaterla laxity right ‘knee,
Posterior guiciate ligament in_i,-Liry:–«_V A’
V) Quadiceps wating
vi) Disability:- faccordiynig -I’ 9
Kessleis law %:.’diis_’ab’i1ity_ of_.righti*~lo’wer
limb is 45°/_0 an(i–.wh.ole body is “15%”.~y
8. Considering the of .5{.7HOV,000/«V
awarded by the Tribriiaal and suffering is
just and proper and it call.’lbiiyélnhancement.
9. /.e:’_ax_2g_ra.rcled by the Tribunal towards
medical».p:’expenses’ on the medical bills
prcjiduced foruthe said sum, there is no scope for
. ‘enhancernent under this head.
_C~l:ai:l.nant was treated as inpatient in Sagar Apollo
AA Hospital for 6 days. Considering the same 110,000/–~
‘..V”‘a\xrarded by the Tribunal towards incidental expenses
such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant
gr,
charges is just and proper and it does not call for
enhancement.
11. The claimant claims to have been
of 158.000/~ pm. by working as a
Corporation Limited, Jayanagar
at Mahalakshmi Corporatio_r1, N”agatharpet’,;
on part time basis. But _produced any
document in that thgaabsence of proof of
income the Tribunal~’i1as:ffi§rhtiy the income of
the Nature of injuries
suggve.sts_t’hat he under treatment and
restiyiat p’ of five months and I award
Rs.20,CiC-«Q/’–v. of income du ring Iaid up
a§ai’r1«s.t__Rs.12,O00/m awarded by the Tribunal.
has not stated that after sustaining
iri-Jiuriesvhxe has been terminated from service. In the
~ absence of the same it is to be presumed that he must
hare been continued in the job and therefore question
H awarding loss of future income does not arise.
Nevertheless having sustained multiple fractures and
crush injuries and an amount of discomfort and
unhappiness he has to bear in his future life I award
Rs.50,000/– towards loss of ainenities as against
Rs.30,000/– awarded by the Tribunal.
13. Considering the multiple fractures ‘by
the claimant it is just and proper to award_:}’..,
towards future medical and
award the same.
14. Thus the claimant for'”the’V4 following
compensation:
1} ~iéajnlilandljlsuhfferingwV” ?. 70,000/–
1.2} r ‘ .Meriic_al.ee’xpe’nses 3 1,45,600/–
3} ” pIneide.ntal~..e’Xpenses ?. 10,000/–
4} ‘ dL0ss._ofAinco:ne during
_ V Laid up period 3. 20,000/–
5} V Lossof amenities ?. 50,000/–
?
T ~__l9’utureWmedical expenses 10,000 / —
?.3.05s600/-
15. ‘~ Vvllkioeordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The
“grnent and award of the Tribunal is modified to the
extend stated hereinabove. The claimant is entitled for
a total compensation of 33,05,600/– as against
E;’>?s/
?.2,67,600/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
6% pa. on the enhanced compensation of ?’.38,000/
from the date of claim petition till the date of
realisation.
16. The Insurance Company is directed to;”tie’p’o._<'s_:itl'
enhanced compensation with interest,
months from the date of reeveiptartof hitcopjfi
judgment. Out of the enh_anced,_ hcompe'nsat1foVn.j'§
with proportionate interest__is"-orderedto be invested in
ED. in the name or Veiaimant uintjiany nationaiised or
scheduled ban}:__for a"p'eri.jod"of..si:§'.yea»rs and remaining
amot1,I1t'– is. ' released in favour of the
claimant.' .
order as to cost.
Sd/1
Tudg