'gm SI:i sxeexiiizasajn, Adv.)
IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA A'If--§;§.'}§~3C }}£?:1;{fi?}I?€TE.b
DATED THIS THE aw DAY _QF.NOVE§IVI"LB;'?:?£2;'2CiO8 ' '
BEFOREQ'
THE HC)N'8LE MR. JUs*biC:B:% B.'SREENl3{%5;SE"wGf§WDA» '
M.F.A._.No. 263~'?f'¢£ 2003 ¢:mr«::1
BETWEEN:
Syed T&$}I1€fiI1 KQuS{3I', _ ~
we Syed
Aged 17 §zéa3_$,'3~n§«:1oVr-,_V'--«.__ '4
R/p by its, g%m;;~c1ia:: «z1aturé§i'7fat;hcr
3y*ed.iVibr*a11iw»
Rfo3Aza_d.1ia'gaz:*_a';,«.% = . _
Near raiiway traéfik, V' "
Mazldya, . '
APPELLANT
SQ'-0 S-._'iddfiah,
R/0 Ni}. 133, , Mailanaikana Katte,
AA Gancialu Post, Mandya Tq.
'. "I'hé Branch Manager,
The Grienta} hlsurance ()0. Ltd.,
" M.(Li. Road, Mandya,
New tf..ra._I1sfaI'rc:d to Ifiivisioznai Managua",
Opp. Fire Brigade,
Sarswathipuram,
Mysore 2(1).
W
REsPo;m E.1§rs_
(33; Sri Suresh, Adv. for R 2) V
THIS MFA FILED U/'S 173(1) 0? Mv ACT AGAINST T;,~1~E,..1t;:m :»_:1_;+3m'.__
AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2007 PASSEL} IN MVC Nc:2..2_335;2Q05 on 'rm:
FELE 05* THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAS'£'~TRACK_' COAIJRf'i'~E ANI) MAfC'F,. V
MANDYA PARTLY ALLow11m:; THE GL2'-XI?-.vi PE'I'1'i'iO1*I F€jR.CQ1_.*wiI?ENSATEON*._
AND SEEKERS ENHANCEMENT OF COM'fENS13tT,ION':».
THIS APPEAL COMING Q?-I.4_¥%'ORV;5sD§'4'§ESSIC?r€;A ATEQIIS. 1:93;=s.?; 'fH§;
Ci'3UR'i',Il}ELiVEREfi THE 1"4'c::1..I..<:;w~'.*.§_:~1<;":«:.;V " V V. "
~1~+~_...I? *3 .1*-- éigcident and
no appeal is filed eiméyv byf €):sz;1 Ae"i-.(;r the" Ifisurcr of the
oiTe1:§:i1ii£ig" fc1":i:e:}.}:§;é;1gi'131 g""'tiie fuming ef the Tribuna;
that 4- a€:t3ic:ik*:.v3i;:t._>Tix*:§§:S'».jfisctztirred chm 1:0 U113 rash and
rmg1igcn'¥;L 0f".tkV1E {::fi'eI1d.i11g vehicie and the iiability
'€}i;"~fi1€f "§I1S1,1IaI1;3E'{:dH1paDy, the only issue Itaquired to be
111:: is Whether the compensation awarded
"Aby: is just and proper or calls fer
xt:nhaiI1¢::'eI:11c11t.
After hearing the learned Counsei for the parties,
pemsmg the judgnani: and award I am of the apinien that
the compensation awardfid by the Tribunal is nut just ané
W
proper and is an the iewer side and} tilerefezfe
tebeenhanced.
4. As evidenced from 6, the
appellant has eustajneci the"fui]§t§9ii3g
1) fall of one _. . ._ _
2) ene. tooth"We$'Vb1'0A1ien; '
3} §ne.._j3'_;':efi;;_wes., _ Vf '
PW 3 whe treated the
appeflant. has: ' »
3) one is
2) one ttieth w"it};1 the upper portion
elightly visibde; _
A V ' V _ 3'; " » en-e wee totally loosened;
'-- be-me en the upper maxilla which
-..eove;:s_toof11 was broken.
B35 local anesthesia removed the intruded
Z teeth. Thereafter met canal treaixnent was
'V de;ie»effier cleaning the sockets he removed intruded teeth
the ieesened tooth replaced with respective eeekets.
The wiring was dene to aii the from: anterior teeth together
.
with Alveolar bone with mettlebar. The deeter the
appeliantihceme after six weeks for fixing
Accordingly the appellant was b;jeught_by’v-
20.10.2005 and underwent f
the suppert of one nature? teeth the ‘ 4 teeth
by adapting the abotfe $aidV_pi’eeec13;re. Eevfurther deposed
that the said fear -not have the same
strength as “teeth. The doctor
twe teeth and other
on the natural teeth and this
Wouki time damage the ether natural
teeth is noticeable by others
of fixafien of artzitieial teeth there is slight
the external appearance of the appellant. He
_asseS’:~1e§é the permanent disahifity to the extent [if 20 to
‘
5. Leazned Counsel for the appellant submits that on
account of the f1’aetu:re and removal ef teeth the appeiiant
@
casmet chew food and there is disfigI1re;3:1’2;:(f._;;t1t:i$§V’ ‘§iei”_”‘1’a¥:e_V
and has afic-xzted her ma1′;”iéi gt’:” . _p1″-vg::sp’-‘s:AtV::fié~;_ ‘Lam %%%m-3
educational career and _ prafks :”f(z)I’ «pf
comprelisatimtl.
6. Per contra, Sri Counasel for the
Insurance ‘ti-1a.1_; :7t1’1vere was only cane
fracture iiccn removed. She was
There is no inmgmvenienca
causefi (:a1*<::e:* and the injury has not
afiizctasd A Themfore the cempeilsation of
A .RV.S.{37';{3GG;f awgiaéd by the Tribunal is just and proper
A 'V12gOft, for enhancement.
” lhavc noticed from the juégnesnt of the Txibunal
A’ apart from remmvaé of some teeth the other teeth are
” ioosenad, due ta which she could not. chew food
which she was doing prim’ to the accident. It has also
came in evicience cf the doctor that there is slight change
in her appearance. Admittedly the appc11§iV*1t” ‘. -Ttfld
gr} studying in 93* standard a:r1d~~i!:. E11;
accéunt of removal of teeth her ff5T, :_19t 3
Changed and it has not af’ft~:z;tcdA”i1e2r’ caréér
and her marriage presgpects-.–**
8. Considering ti2.¢”::1at~in’§:. (Sf sustained, pain
and suifexings u:1d¢:;fgr§r1:2;=: undertaken by
the ap;3e}l:§a i:.:t’, of R$.3(),O0O/- awarded
by “pain and suifeling, loss of
amcnit.ie?.3″”~. fAEA!3’_’: “~=;»1}nhappi11ess, pleasure, marriage
etfi Rs.6,000/- awardeci towards nimdicai
tI’cat1neI1t as against the medical Iiaills
Rs.6{}-30/– and Rs.1,00G/- awarded towards
atterirjéint charges are mat only just and proper they am
much an the lower side and irzadequate.
.
9. After careful consiécration of the; the
appellant: I deem it 31.131: and prapgr 1:0
compcnsaticm as tmdtzr: 1 ”
1) Pain, sufferings and m$:r1ta§.__ag(;«ny ‘1?_5.5£)4,’€.!{){)~,(V~
2) Medical expenses, tifiafifiiétnt . V
and incidental charge$.___s}’u.;:h.._» .
as I10urishmeIit~,..,_at.t<:nda11t' charges '
and cenveyancfl » _ –. Rs. 15,000] —
3) Loss of mngrmitiés’ fife: Rs.15,0G0/-
4) 193055;’ Cf .§I;ospiéctus I Rs.25,GO(),/-
4) 1{}§i’iS_C§f
. .. cause’; tolierfzdlfilcational career Rs. 13,000]-
Tota} Rs. 1 , 18,000] ~
‘ appellant is entitled for tcxtai cempsnsatian
éf..__Rs,_v1;§,8~=,tf§00/~ iI”1C1¥.L1diE1g the compensation awarded by
n the with interest at 6% 13.31. from the date of
A’ peéifion till the éatc of actual payment.
gm. Accorriingly the appeal is allcrswed. Tbs judgnmt 3116
‘ award of the ‘I’ribuna} is medififid to the: above extent. The
respendent II1SLiI”‘aI’1C€ Company is directeciAv.£i:;,’thc
compensation amczunt. with iiritcrcst ‘411’1¥:3s<:#1:1f1§5»_._
from the date 01' receipt of a ,
N0 order as 1:0 costsf, ' . . V V n '
Sri Surtrsh, to Sit
vakaiath wtitirxin twa