Sri Sunil Malik vs Sri P Mahaveer Chand on 12 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Sunil Malik vs Sri P Mahaveer Chand on 12 October, 2009
Author: H.Billappa




MFA.No.13611 /2066

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, '

   "  ..... 

'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


[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.


consideration of the material on record, has awarded just and
reasonable compensation and therefore, it does not cal for


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;


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


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


expenses like nourishing food, conveyance and attendant


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


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


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


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


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.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information