IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12% DAY OF OCTOBER 20aQ9A'aaL%aaa:%%
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC»E"H;BIL~;{aAfiéPAv 'A:
MFA.No.13611 /2066
BETWEEN: A A A
Sri.Sunil Malik,
Aged about 59 years, , _
S/0.Late Mohan Singh Maiik, A V
Choice Punjabi Dhaba, . f
M.V.CompleX--H, 1 .
Opp: Petrol -
Hope Farm, \?\7liitefliE1d'.V.""«-- * A
Bangalore -- 550=oa6'a.?:.,_ ; 'A ..APPELLANT
(By Sri.R.Ki?§shnaAVf{9éwdd_;jf; ' "A
AND: A A A A
1. Sri.P.I\{iahaVeer cnand, '
" .....
S/0.Si*i_Pi1}:hrag",
'Pr0Pl*ie'E.O'r, "
M/s;«Mah~aVe¢r Giass House,
No.32;"AB.V.K..I_yéngar Road,
A _BangaJ.ore__"-- 580 053.
A Ngw Iifizlia Assurance Co., Ltd.,
' .__Nd.23/2., Tiffany's Annex,
ifial" Mallya Road,
Bangalore -- 560 001.
. -«.4Rép'resented by its Manager. RESPONDENTS
L,/
[By Smt.P.V.Kalpana, AdV., for R-1)
(By Sri.K.Suryanarayana Rat), Adv.,for R-2]
This l\/l.F.A. is filed under section 173
against the Judgment and Award dated 1 1.08.2QC6’pas-sed’_”inl”»
MVC No.6261/2005 on the file of the Mem.ber,””‘Mr”\..CT — V–,».>
Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan.-A1″ea, Blangalore (SCCE1-
5}, partly allowing the claim petition for ppcornpensaticfn
seeking enhancement of compensation,
This MFA Coming for Court’
delivered the following:~
This appeal is j_liVdgment and award,
dated 1}-O8–200l3!:-‘passed Bangalore City, in
Mvc.No.626l1d72eZf5. A it B
2. By”f.deposituf-“ej’:’
lfigéfieved by that, the appellant has filed this
” ‘ V . ‘* ..peaE_l seeking enhancement.
V
consideration of the material on record, has awarded just and
reasonable compensation and therefore, it does not cal for
interference.
7. I have carefully considered the
by the learned counsel for the pa:rties_,.~.~
8. The point that arise_fo.r_.
Whether the Tribunal has reaeonable
compensation? l A V. l l K H ‘V
9. It is relevant has awarded a
sum of ., ‘pain and sufferings. The
appellant has” snfferecl injuries:–
ternndr”aIlV_p_Q}:ar extradural haematoma;
‘ contusion;
” bone fracture;
(dbl Billateral High Parietal fracture;
A “ff f_(e)’*Left f0rt–II fracture;
l l§(fl Left 21″? to 6”? ribs fracture;
L/
The appellant has taken treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 13 days and thereafter, follow-up treatment, The
injuries have resulted in permanent disability. The
has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/– towards 4_
sufferings, which is inadequate. Havingregard.V’,{§.’I,f.he natured’ ‘ j
of injuries, duration and natureiflof-_ treatment,«.
considered View, a sum of – would a”reVaVsonableV
sum towards pain and s_t1fferfings.,’j’ accordingly, it is
awarded .
10. The treatment as inpatient
‘st’
for a period of anédthhereafter, followwup treatment for
about six rnont,hs., fi’heA’.a’ppe1iant has produced medicai bills
:,.to_the _’Rs..i’,’50.,_Q4v9-90 ps. The Tribunal has awarded
— towards medical and incidental
ff”»,__._experiAsesf which inadequate and a sum of Rs.1,75,000/–
would be”. a reasonable sum. Accordingly. a sum
is awarded towards medical and incidental
L/«
expenses like nourishing food, conveyance and attendant
charges.
11. The Tribunal has awarded a
towards loss of income during the periodtof treatnierit:v~tal;3;ng
the income of the appellant at»’Rs.3,OV’GQ/’—
appellant has produced income show that
the appellant was earning raore /– per annum.
Therefore, it is proper to take. appellant at
Rs.4,000/- Accordingly; ismtaken and a sum of
Rs.24,000/j<i.S_ of income during the
" . _'
period of treatment i.e'.;4six m_o'm:l1s.
in V
._L_/
12.A.’..’l’pl’1€4;lhTi:lC)u1?i§Ell has: awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/~
of life. The appellant has suffered
fract–:iVre’_ bone, fracture of parietal bone, Left
T’ Fort — Il”‘«frac’ture7’and multiple rib fracture and it has resulted
in”-pemrzlanerltll disability of 25% in respect of the whole body.
Tihelfloctoér has deposed that the appellant suffers from optic
lnerv’e”damage and it has impaired his hearing. The appellant
[9//
disability needs to be taken at 25% as the appeliarit has
suffered permanent disability of 25% in respect of .the;««xiifia.o1e
. body. If the income of the appellant is taken
p.m. and the disability is taken at ‘ 1.
9 is adopted, then, the eompensatiori’.pa§a¥ole1tof7Va.rds
future earnings comes to Rs. /-0′”an_c1′ it is V
awarded.
14. The total com.;§ensation”.0″‘._oa§ifa’b1e comes to
Rs.4,32,000-O0 b1;eai€~;–_f1;1p_.isj:asRfoiiowsr
(21) Towards Rs. 60,000–00′
fb] Towards’ miedieai’
expenses’ like nouristiiiig.
conveyance a.tte11da.r1’tw.(n_:harges Rs. 1 , 7 5 , 000-00
V(e._1 ioss oi ainenities of life Rs. 651000-00
{d} income during
the-perio,d”–.oi’ treatment Rs. 24,000-00
V ‘(e}_ Towards .._}os-ssoif future earnings Rs. 1 ,08, 000-00
TOTAL 0 Rs.4,32,000-00
1/”
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribtinal in
MVC.No.6261/2005 stands modified, granting com.pen=sation
of Rs.4,32,000–OO, instead of Rs.3,03,000–O0,
6% p.a., from the date of petition tiliethepdatellvoflfgalisationlit’
The second respondent shall deposit:l’the’.’_Aainotlmt’
weeks from today excluding aiready’~-;vdepojsited§’l
50% of the enhanced compensati’o11..”shaii._l3e invested in Fixed
Deposit in any nationalised bank. of three years
and the appellant «shall he the interest
accrued be released in favour
of the appellant. pl
V. p_ D: the.’awai’_dy,.accordingly.
Ed,/e
3§..§D@E”t
