IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF DECEMBER. 2019' BEFORE " ° THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVAS.E' c;D'x'x?13A ' -- Miscellaneous First Apjgeal Neg'; 77OiI)«7 (Sf K 2 BETWEEN Sri Yogananda S/0. Narasimha Murfthy Aged about 31 Years, --_ E. D R/at. No.94 / C, Jaragar1.¢__"r1a11i.,.V7' JP. Nagar Post; _ Bangalore - 3 . ' (By As A dxf.'} AND " ' M 1.' '' Smt. Bhanumathi. " ,N0.__32, S'a?i..17l-?ggiriNivasa, S u._b1?amanyapura, _ "V-Na.g'app_a Block. " " Nea1'~ .Maruthi Layout, _B'a151ga10re -- 61. "-. ((}w'ner of Scorpio bearing " _ No.KA--41--M-1451] H * . M / s. Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., N0.105--A, Cears Plaza. 136. Residency Road, Bangalore-25. (Insurer of Scorpio bearing N0.KA~41-M--145 1] Reptd. by its Manager. fir Respondents
{By Sri. A N Krishna, Adv. for R1, pp
Smt. H. R. Renuka, Adv. for R2}
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of Mvrr.jAct,:faigaaripstp
the judgement and award dated 26.02_.2–OQ’8, passed _i’1i« .V
MVC No.2591/2007 on the file’ of”iX A..ddi.ti_o’na1 Judge’, ‘
Member, Mact-7, Court of Small Gaj;f.seeS.,’ AMetropo1i~tar’1
Area, Bangalore, SCCI-I-7′, part.1y:’–_a]iowing’ the’
petition for eompensation’and seeiiirigw e’n.h’a.noernent of
compensation.
This appeal co1’r..1ing_«”fon” forVj’AdmisAsion§’VVthis day,
the Court, delivered fh’EpfOi]QVfJiif1g’f-.:VV:” ”
Thistppappgeal is eiaiinant for enhancement of
corngyensation award ed. _by_ the Tribunal.
2. _ v”f’h_eA1_app7ea1 is admitted and with the
of learns-d~Counse1 appearing for the parties, it
V for final disposal.
3.” ‘*–Fo’I the sake of convenience parties are referred to
A’ as they are referred to in the claim petition before the
if “E fribunal.
4. Brief facts of the case are:
3
That on 10.03.2007, when the claimant
was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.
KA–05–EG 2476 on Aralu Mallige Partha Sarathi____road
near Girinagara traffic police station, a Scorpio-ijbeharing
registration No. KA–~4l–~M~l451 came in V’
negligent manner and dashed a;gainst his
as a result, he fell down and t1sustain_ed’~ .griey’ous’._V
injuries. Hence, he filed “p’etition: the
MACT, Bangalore,’ seekingiljé ‘compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/~. The judgment
and award of Rs.1,84,400/..
with interest 1 ,69,400/–.
5. 51′-\.-sop there’ ‘is’: no’ dispute regarding occurrence of
negligence and liability of the insurer of the
the only point that remains for my
consideration in the appeal is:
n T Whether the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper or does it call for
enhancement?
fffs’
two occasions and he recently examined the claimant
on 6.02.2008 and found that there was discharge of
sinus present over the right knee lower Sm of the right
leg and that there is gross swelling present on .rig.ht
knee leg and ankle and that the .
walking, movement of right knee. and _righ’t::l’_:;1n’l{le’..are 0″‘
restricted and painful. He assessed r~60%.
the right lower limb and thehwhole
8. Considering the_natu.r’e liiijuriesl,'”Rs.;:£l0,000/–
awarded by the and suffering is
just and”ipro§;ger arid ‘there is””no’ scope for enhancement
underzthis_ headed’ . lg .. n it
9. The claimant in his evidence has stated that he
» received«.hos~pita1 expenses through medi claim scheme
H medical bills for Rs.l,185/–and
the has awarded Rs.5,000/~ towards medical
and, incidental expenses such as conveyance,
nourishment and attendant charges, thereby awarded
only Rs.3,815/– towards incidental expenses which is
on the lower side. He was inpatient in the hospital
%.
assessed the disability at 60% to right lower limb and
20% to whole body.
13. Learned Counsel for the appellant subrrlitsas
the doctor has stated 20% disability to the’..’:Whole’lhi:bodyA
the same has to be taken as funetioiial disability. V
14. Learned Counsel for the Insurance. “‘Cor{iepan§,*l
submits that on recent examination Vthej’dLocVtVQIt:\§
stated that swelling which -presentllinthe earlier
now disappeared and j.l,O–?/go taken by the
Tribunal whilewgrking loss:-of income is just
and proper. V V’
15. Consideririlgg all situation justice would be
j meit~:.:by_tA’tal<ing'"fu.;1_ctional disability at 15%. Muitiplier
'ap'plicable;*to"his age group is '16'. Therefore, future
ieeeeieiiaeeegeiwerite out to Rs.1,29,600/– [Rs.4,500/– x
15% X16) and it is awarded as against Rs.86,400/–
'iIf'i4exi2etded by the Tribunal.
Considering the nature of injuries Rs.l5,000/–
awarded by the Tribunal towards future medical
expenses is just and proper and it does not call for
enhancement.
17. Thus the claimant is entitled for the
compensation:
1) Pain and suffering 1{e;tdd”4f3,o0Q’,*;
2) Medical 81 incidental]
expenses ._
3) Towards loss of.in_c0me’._ ‘ a
during laid up period ” Rs. i~.8′;’O0O/-
4} Towards loss of amenities ” 203.000/-
5} Future lossof ilicome it Rs.’ ‘1~_.29,600/–
8} Future medial efxpenseeg Rs. 15,000/–
;; ‘ro§.a1′”‘l” l7vst}i”e.–e.2.3o.6oo/-
18. Aeeerdtiugifgcfiiieiejjpeaitie’ allowed in part and the
Judgment”and.Vav.tard’ Tribunal is modified to the
extent statedherein”-ahove. The claimant is entitled for
cjornpensation of Rs.2,30_.600/– as against
1 8?£.”–?:xt_)CV).AV2V’~ev-.’awarded by the Tribunal with interest at
6%”—p.a’.’ the enhanced compensation of Rs.46,200/–
from the date of claim petition till the date of
wre’ai’is ation.
” The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount with interest within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
20. Out of the enhanced compensation
proportionate interest is ordered to be
in any nationalized or schedu1ed”‘Bank”_oin, .t1ji’e._narn’e of
the ciaimant for a period of 6 ye2ars»{‘–_Vand
amount with proportionate’-.tntereet*i$*0f¥ieVi*erimto be ‘V
released in his f8.VO1}I;.’~._ .
No order as to costs.
Vb/-- JUDGE