'.r'~2< '
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1n"' DAY on DECEMBER 2(.}(19n
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A_N.AND
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALIAP-J4L).:§2"i';3 (SF 2i<).0$
BETWEEN:
Sri.Suresha,
Son 0fRang21ppz.-1, -- 'A .
29 Yeiars, BSNL Employee. "
27"'C1i0ss, Kuver11p:iT»I_agz::§2{;' _ . :
Hasszm.
(By S hri .G . V . Na rzifgi mu 1f£h'j{;, i/()C';-11%.')
I. S1'i.DLC}zinesh wKLI':i1:az:9,"'
Son of K' _S1"vi:1iva1_sz==L,._V S V
Ag{':;f..:nz1j()1'»,_A A V' A '
----------
. ' 2 , Uid PQ:';.t C-'..fficer,
'[')£31f_i"i1.EVi@S'E1a1"1-t1._'ci"?OSt,
-- A " '--B€'lt11zigz1.di'fIfaiL:k,
-.I_):.1i<:.»i~'ni1_'1'Lf':..- K:mnada District.
_ T Unitfsd India Insurance Company Limited
V V °BQ1'anch ()ffict':,
E51'abE1u Building,
1" F100;', Opposite Arun The&.tc1'.
Main Road, Put1n_=571 201.
/5
~ . 'C()l¥}T_»"Ji.'~:;1f15s"¢1{-1()l"1.
I{ep1"es'1lowii1g: ~
6
JUDGMENT
Heard the i.'(,)LEE1.’H’Cl for the pe:.iti.0ne1″_
7. The appellant is aged about and lieiWztS’_’vle1i*:pleyed
with the Teleeom Depart.ment. The z1ppella_nt’*iwakaa’xaiiictiiititifiiiti
road accident had stlfferetl head inj;;1,i’iies. whiclji 1’et_1L1″ii’e’d1Sustaiined ”
treatment. Even after tifeatV_mei”1t;””‘;teiet’):'(tj.gg u-)”1.he.vv’Medj¢;1|
Practitioner who had tendered the appellant,
the appellant had s_§at?feiietl. fifoiié, ‘7i%’wpe:5i’nVa_11e..}it disability. It is on
this basis thatthef.appe.lla11t_Viha’dpap-p1’0ia<;hed the Motor Accident
Claims T.1flbt_iI't£1lVViSE:<3l§iE'iigi4t?tiI'npC1Jisa{l()11. The Tribunal having
awarded ::0n1pelnsz1ti'o_i'1ixin'ii; total sum of Rs.l,E_8,U(}(}/–, the
"'.;1ppelVl"aht isil:-<:Vf()1.'e ti'iis:_C_Q.u:"t seekin_g:_ enhancement.
._ i'Tll'G,,i_C(vi.l}v1'i'S€l for the appellant would point out that the
.award"i0w=ai'(l's'inedical expenses is on the lower side and that the
]ap}5e'1l–ant ii; entitled for a larger coinpensation having regai'd to the
"««–'m1t'a1'e. of injtiries sustained and the t'reatmen_t Lmdergone, the
6'
compensation towards medical expenses ought to be enhanced
even if the appellaiit has not been able to t'Ln'nis1'i E.!.dB~qtiI;-[E6
1'nate1'ials; in suppott of his Claim.
4. However, the counsel w0L1ld_p0i.nt jt’)Lil7.l_ t’h;;it-__ii’ist~).fzii”
1()$s of fntiire e’.-trning capacity vi:S’«._{pi’es§ed by the
Medical Pmetititmei’ to 10% iii-23″; i’ne”diic’:a1 evidence in this
regaid. Thei’ef0i’e_, .thev..appeI1z1tit’httsibeeii tietnfik/ed of the just and
proper measufe (‘if=4.)(3’iT1ip_€tlfiiti-i_()’fi. ‘()5 at<;'cs};1*i1t of L'tE'biIi"&11"y decision
of the Ti'fi'bunti1 eAt.c};f,i'ec1ti%;e the JCi'iS£1'{)iiiit}" to 1()%
5. I*’Lirt_he:j insj<)t"a:r ";i.$i"_;e!t)ss of tnnenities is concerned, the
"'~,.t1sn()2.jn5t. ;tw;1,i'cied ii'is.____i_ne;1gi"e. and re.quii'es to be enhanced
[The–.awai"d towards conveyance, nourishment and
and t.0wai'ds thture me.dic.a1 expenses is awarded
attendniit ehtit:
21 SL1.i1’§73V__it’Ji’ Rs.1(),()0()/~ in all, which requires to be enhanced
_ iS’1.1\l’J:-?..1£’1″Li1ti’d1i}’.
6
6. The counsel for the respondent would further resist the
appeal and would submit that in zibsenee of inaterh,-il. thentetlieal
expenses ezninot be enh’.-inced and even Rs.7,0{l()/- 2iwi;ii;tietlo’_’b..y “the
Tribunal is in excess zmd therefore the :1ppe_llant «is”not:ent’EtledV for
any €l”1l12111C€ITlc’R{. lnsof:,11′ us zlwznd tow*in”ds’_i_il(>ss t5¥.f’Ut;i’1~:é le..2i1’fiiiig
czlpaeity cone.e.rned. the same is..__lon_M the” speet1lation””‘thatl the”
appellzmt suffeis from disability of’ 3(i_)’I?oll”‘T his isnotwtenable in
View of the appellant cc)ntinLiiiig toble¥leinp’i’oiyed’with the telecom
department in wliieiflie was eiintgiloyeitlfe–:a1’_liefi’ and hence there is
no palpable li>ss,–i:_\_5’/;§’_iicli” *to* be Coinpensated, even if the
aippel_lanti_sut?l’ers, lfi’3oriv1_.tlielsoicnliecl disability. Insofar as the other
heads of C.l;l1li’£i11lart?llC(‘)l’H§€’1″1}é.£l, the T:”ibunz-1! has awarded fairly
” ‘~ .suffir: lé:t1t:;_1i’11()L!ntsii i1n<l,___he.:v'1ee there is no wazrmnt for inte:'fe1'enee..
._ "'C£ivei1l.l'Vtl1'e above circumstance. the award of Rs.'7.0(l{)/–
— t()x=i/ziiids i’netl’iCi3l expenses is eertzunly on the lower side. even in
4:11;: nbseilce of innterinl evidence. given the nature of treatment,
‘ the appellant is entitled for an enlmnced C()I11pCnS£1tl(.)I]. Hence, the
8
6
appellant is held entitled to an additional sum of Rs.l(‘),O(..l(‘)/–
towards medial expenses. However. “.1 sum of Rs. l(}.()()(‘)/- 2uy2i’i’tled
tow:-11’ds future loss of earning is c0neerne.d, the eonte_n’ti'<)n.itthziti1lhex
appellant continues to be employed zmd ,1l"ijC1'€li()I7c" 'tlieife bil[s'~.1it*ylusj_s
vocation or 21ppreh_ension and ought F1(l'i'.'I07.._li)iti~ 'ie0i'1side_rer;l l'at"e—:1lllA:1it$
not tenable. The disability wl1ielr:th,e l\/ltéfdltlztl_vl3i'V;1C'tif[lU11€I'l had i
expressed was to the whole' .boclylt}1_e dis2tbil–ity:.~f10t having
manifested to disable the ;ippe~llé1nt'frdi11 W(.)~1fikvl.llig».fL11'thell" is not the
criteria.
8,”l.lti”is’ueiirc uiilfirs’t:,1nee’tl1z1tt’l’1e~–appel’l2-mt would have to bear
:1 larger ei’7f()i'<t in –eai'i'yi1ilg«.ni'i-the activity that he was capable of
d0ii1g,e3.i'lieif is tyne.ehns'i.dei*ati0ii and the second consideration i_s
thew' lii'inpel'nclii1gp_ loss llltiif employment and prospect of future
itgie'n_fipil0yihei1t.ti:i.t'–"'the appellant, which requires to be addressed
and l.t:'he1*el't)1*e""lthe Tribuirt-Ll liziviiigg adopted l()',:'/c as wh0le.~b0dy
l_"..(lli.'s2ll'-\4_i.li§y"l is without the basis of :1 second medical opinion which
i' hzgcl lll{ll<'.'2;E[L'Cl that there was wl10le–b0tly disability of 3()% that the
8
appellant harboured. Hence, the c(_>mper1sz1tion granted towards
loss of future e.aming ought to be Rs.1,83,(a(_)(.)/– (3000 x X
30%) instead of Rs;.61,’2()0/~. Hence, an additional ctt§§’iiip–e’r;–s;.n_tiion”« _
of Rs. 1 ,22,4()()/– (Rs. i .83.6()(‘) »- R:.4.(1l,2()£))__t<)wzf1'1'tiS" fLI_tLl}T:é
earning is amended.
Further, the appeilant is to an;aenitie.s in
a larger measure. He1ace,A”«–.ti*§3. ‘ eintitied to an
additional sum of ‘{n:~;ofar
compensationi. and attendant
charges Arie'”iCm1{;fe1″1ae’Eii,”*th”‘.Su1ne “iL<;"u'iso enhanced by a sum of
Rs. 1 (),0()o/Q «
_~"1fhe_xzippe1l_an'tw i$v___t_i}u..a entitied to an additional. compensation
"_(f)'f5§é.'§."1,A5'2',%¢OL}}[%.'('-_100()O + 122400 + ioooo + 10000) with at 6%
inteieét §)€1.'.'ét'l"'i,i:_i_!'.I::1} from the date ofciaim petition.
sd/-
JUDGE