IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE}
DATED THIS THE 13? DAY 01%' DECEMBER
PRESENT
THE I-I{}N'BLE MR.JUS'!'I(3E3 9EEPAK.*;r..£éRMA-T.::: "
AND
THE HDNBLE MR..RJ$'FICF}'* K§§2AMAVN';1s:A "
M. RA. No.7g%4%$;'20o4;%V%
BETWEEN: ' '
SUDHAKAR sHE'FI"§,V . «.
AGED AB3%u'r..46L.¥EAEz:'.,
S/0.SUBBANN2x~&3HE'r'i3TY, ,
R/.s0W:3A.,' . " "
HARDALL1 «-- MANLE AL'i_.I_j V133; ._A.C;':i«:'.V~,*'
KUNDAPURA'1'ALUK; 'A
UDUPIIHST. " .. APPELLAN1'
'EB? H.JA*m:s;a..;a' SHE'l'TY', ADV.)
1 '.aHAm§:épL's»HE§§:IiAR SHETTY,
s;0._12Ac;HITn2A§~zA SHETTY,
R/o.:«;Avm..u;«:0DL.u oz» MO}-1AHALLi
'§{ILI.A(}£'-,V KUNDAPURA TALUK.
V' "..j2¢13,'s;aAE§«;m.R SRETTY,
xuxaaofé.
-.j:R;'§}.NO.11/1,
' _ 3m CROSS, ANNIPURA,
~ ' MAIN ROAD, SUDAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE -H 27.
3.THE ORIENTAL !NSUR&3\ICE CO.LfFD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
-3.
M
PRABHU BUILDING,
MUNICIPAL MAIN ROAD,
KUNDAPURA, V.
REFEBY rrs BRANCH MANAGER. .. REsPoN1)§:m'~3_
{BY SR1 S.V.HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R-3;~~~---- I A'
I 2%-h\=é-1 .~ " . "
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 1?'3f_1) M'! Ai3'1'
JUDGMENT AND AWARD D'I'.3/'?/()4 passggfiivN'Mv<.:.'re0;a:j3%99;;::
on THE FILE OF' THE (DEVIL JUBGE (SE1..DN.,} :3 MEMBER,' A_?_~_.'£;s,(::'i'»,.
KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWIN'sC} THE';CI,;A}M _.PE'r:T10N"; :2'<°:»12*,
czamygwsawow AND SEE:K1?1§} "£TNHANGVEBk!_§2'E€*i7. cw.
COMPENSATION.
TEES APPEAL BEING~..RE$E§'_VE:i§. Coifiimé an FQR
PRONUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT my, K.RAMANNA.J.,
DELIVERED THE F~o:.Lz::w1N<:;:.;
flg§§gfiExT
This by the appeliant/claimant not
V. axnount of compensation. awarded
" _t:h;§= Tclaims Tribunal, Kundapura, in
Mvtfizéo. 1329/%2Oc1 decided on 3/?/2004, seeking
_ _ 'Vennhancazxment cf compensation.
The case cf the appeilant in brief is that on
1 ;;* I0/2001 at about 13.30 pm}. he being a piflion rider
V , fwas pmcaedizlg an a meter bike bearing Reg1.Nt:or ':':iV_i{é the V
appellant was a pfl}ioIi 1'ider;'AV""§§<§;§i§§i1_ig..f:'a§§.E:1::1e:1f;, surgery was performed
and themaffér gmendéd ifiiiaw up Heament. That due to
3 V' the sgustfiiiied; he suffered pemnantmt disability,
claim petition undar Section 166 of the
Metef Act claiming coxnpensation in all
~ :0,5o,é;o0/~
* After selvice of notice, respondent No.3 insurer of
vehicle filed a detailcrd statement of objectiens,
‘ ” c-sraterlciing that the amount claimed by the appellant on
various heads is excessive and Witheut any basis.,
thf: rash and negligent driving of the vehicie by re$p{mdent
No.1. The law was set in mation on the E16
compiaint ledged by one K.V.Ba1achandr§£
Accordingly, police regstemd a §::Q;Se;-_- ‘
No. 1 / driver of the offending A. ‘Thé
have not disputed with regard”fi§”–the :m2.:g::er’%ix§k’:;%i:ich ma
accident took place. In”‘iI.’1;;t,’::1ié1r;;_.;?¢=§ éiheet “£0 be filed
against the driver of thVe-1′ Therefore,
consideiiiig – 2;-«.2 eiegiaencg 91” ftrie injured claimant, the
ev1’dence –0f P.W-.3′:i?_i3é ‘<i.$°'1:13.-:2 eye WiiI'1§$$ ti) the accident
discloses at the "of the accident he was near the
V' the 'a{:cidé:§:1t"'i;€é, near bus stand. He was sitt':ing in
and saw the appellant proceedixig as a
pfllicxfix a motor bike. At that time, a Tata Sumo
'~._ thxe jofiéngiing vehicle same from Sowda road in a high
'A in rash and negligent manner and dashed against:
right portion of the meter bike. Thsugh he was cross»-
” examined by the respcmdents advocate, nothing
vmrthwhile has been elicited. Therefore, MACT was right
\
in resending its finding bedding that the
offending vehicle was rash and neg1igent_*’2if1£i1
question occurred only cine to
of the offending vehicle.
7. As far as the –».,ef .ee’zepenEeation is
concerned, we have evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2 and the appellant
herein 5-.e”VVInentiened in the
Wound and 3 are grievous
in natere ” he was forced to undergo
operetien o1i”ax;¢eImtAefi}ie gievous injuries and inpiants
‘W€IY3i.j p=::1t,~~. diseharged on 13/ I 1/2001.
‘i:’a_ii£3As_eq1:je1t§tE3}A; was admitted for remevai ef inplants
on 14/12/2001 which gees to Show that
e. h.e was “L1;;fiiiergoi11g trwment as inpatient for 42 ciays and
took follow up treatmem. Considering the
K ieeyiéience of P.W.1 eeupied with the evidence of P.Ws.3 and
-. it could be said that the Tribmlal has not properly taken
into account the nature of the iI1juz*ies susiained and
/6
treatment undergone by appellant both as inpafiem and
outpatient and percentage of disability to considerihzgs
of eaxjning capacity. No doubt the doctor
that the appeliant sufiered pennanetnt’ ‘ (:i.i5s§.’biIiw ” V’ »
40°26 on ascount of injuries suétairfieév tiy.
accident.
8. Considering the 1}atti1″e Of the
treatment undergone we are of the
opinion: undar the heads ‘pain’
and sufiV’E::’i1’1g’Vis therefore, it is enhanced to
awarded by the Tribunal under
” *i:hc ii§E;§’é’3.ci..”‘:21e::;1ica.1;’Ve’5;i’;:ié:i:1ses’ is enhanced to Rs.65,000!~.
‘V9; the evidence of P.Ws.1 agncf 2 clearly
indicafite is shorténing G1’ the Icg of the appellant
*._ 1;-:> tIT1e éxifint of 3 .inchc::s and the appellant being a Teacher
T.is..Vex;3§écted to stand in the class room while teaching, with
of permanent disability. Considering the cvidence of
“VVP.W.2/Beater which shows that the appellant is; required
to Spend more than Rs. 1,50,00(I}/~« for future medical
exmnses, it is just and proper to ‘
Rs.1,50,06Gl– under the head ‘fiiiiire
The Tribunal granted a meager
towards ‘food, extra naufishméfit’ w1;1i4::hV_ to V’
Rs. 10,0001″-. Likewise; the
head medical attendaniéésif at Rs.3,000/_
and Rs.5,00Qf§:«%.VLw_’as ‘£0.._._.3Iis.5,0(30/- and
12s.1o,ooo/:3 %
:9.” as t§1’+1’.” ViVV1V91′<V:'V<)z13<~:~, during the laid up
period' has rightly awardad
R.ai.32,(l(}0/'nfiaiclé: Considering the fact
fha.t is as Teacher and taking into
age and salary as on the date of
a¢_ciAd:a':1I1?i.V__»'T1'ibt1z"za1 has awarded a sum of
1T,oo;ac5o/- tawanis 'disability, deprivation of future
fménitiés', which is maintained. Thamfore, considering
_'flmf§fa(:ts and circumstances of the case, the appeilant is
'A Entitled ta a total sum of R.s.4,I2,900/- together with
Tr
1':
ED
interest at 6% pa’. fimrn {he data cf petition till of
paynwnt.
11. For the fozegeing reasogggqve :f:ui1t)»*.~,;:
in part. Judgment arid aWardV”~:4pa:$sa{i
Tribunal are modified. ‘ }§1C?pg]}”aA i:s i%
COII1pf311Si’3({i0I1 of at} 6% pa.
from the date of petitiori .thr_;-: jiayment.
12. Sinc:%_’t1_;e i:1si11*é:;* deposited the
award — by the
appeflanif V 3/ Insmame Company
shal} deposit {fie within four Weeks from
.g;1s1;’1’a”‘iS”‘iiab1e to pay the cost cf litigati-an
§XtEfié§;ate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,0{}0/– if
Sd/-5
Judga
3d/-E
Iudgfi
*3/{V5