IN THE HIGH C'C)UR"i' OF KARN}%,TA1§i§jA';f.§ANGfiEQRE_A«
DATED THIS 'THE ggazm DAY OF i "
V
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTi§jE.
THE HONBLE I\'/If{'.J",{fST'{C;E21¥§§_S;:KEMPANNA
M,F.A-NQ,1 1_f759 i2c»05
BETWEEN '
T.MUNIRAJ_U" * _
S/O H.TH1M1\.4:A1AH . 7'
AGED ABOUT '
REsI1:§ING'A1f;B.NA'g:AsANDRA,
YAMAL_UR_ POST, VAPT}1.UR HOBLL
BANGALORE. ' j ...APPELLANT
(BY SRl.A':M.E3URVESHA REDDY & ASSOCIATES)
* _ 1. --r§R1ENTAL'i--N8URANcE CO! LTD,
' g _NO.44'/'455',«--._LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
' - M.AG;R_(>A'D,'
._ "BANk'3E&l,ORE';"
A REP. B'?-MANAGE;R
2. xsi.s.E3HA1:<1
S /0 H_.M.\fEERANNA
" R/AEVM/S. BHARI
"r;::A\/I:',Ls, JAGAJYOTHI
-.3.UILD1NC:, BELLARY RQAI1
g CHALLAKERE,
V CHITRADURGA DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
{BY SRI.S.SRISI~iE\iLA — ADV FOR R~ E,
r’~s rx wv: *r7*<r\.
Ra’: omiv LU}
AA:
:»A’rE:D:18/07/r35,___’:>As–s5D IN-1., ”
MVC M04453/290: ON THE: F-:;;E;”–r)F;THE”-ff; $3131.,
JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT :QFj.ivS1%4ALL’-C2’¥1;1SE:S;
BANGALORE {SCCH–6), PARTLY }:L1;’Qi?&!I1\EG;v_–v_1’1’1{.E;’~ c:L’A::\2I~,
PETETION FOR COMPF/NC5A'[‘ION. AND .1g$HEvvE;<1N«:;–,j
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSA'fi0N.
THIS APPEAL COM_1NG .2:-‘N ‘;%.Q§éV”F1NAL HEARING THIS
DAY, MA1\TJUNATH J. , ‘DE1i1¥?E1?§E;D ‘FOLLOWING: ~
T he not satisfied
with by the MACT,
Bangei-1_0r<:,–A1A dated 18.7.2005,
wherein' granted compensation of
?36.._f{100,/ — in of the injury sustained in a road
occurred on 26.9.2001 at about 11.15
at' cross, Malleshwaramg Sampige mad,
Bangf;11V'Q:je.,V in appeal before this Court
1' T116 claimant was driving his auto bearing No.
Sampige road, Bangalore At that point of time, the
bus bearing Nix KA 16 A 3339 coming fram the
southern sicie in rash and negligent manna" dash€c:1
againgi €116 21u{Qri<:kshaw f fine’: Ciaiinam. As 21 result of
which the 2u;t<)r£C1<§haw Earned turtle and £116 daimani
332?'
X
sustained fracture Of fibula and tibia of his
ether injuries: He was irmt'1ed:at–%:Iy_"'shifted', tee
K.C.Genera1 hospital where he
inpatient from 21.9.2001'? t.:e'-.8.1{§;'2Q01g "after".
discharge he was taking tre.at:r12.ent,_ "I.'he«vfraCture has
not been united. Thvetrettis right leg by 1".
It is difficult torthjnl and his right
ankle difficult for him
to squat doctor has assessed
the lowter Vlimb at 60% and to the
whole "dairnant has stated that he
Wasgetting' an'h'1ee:ne"..0f ?3,000/w p.rn. The tribunal
'ht"=.<:onsidering. the"h'a'ture of injury sustained by him
of ?'20.,OOO/- towards injury, pain and
sufferirtg, '€1,000/– tewards medical expenses,
"V..,?1O,OO_('):j,f~ for loss of amenities and 35,000/~ towards
A eeriveyanee, neurishing food and attendant eharges.
' Aifihutst in all a totai eempensatien Qf ?38tOOO/~ has been
V wtawareied. Being not satisfied with the same, the present
3. eat is filed. a
pp 61/
3. We have heard the Ieatjhed eeunxsielp
parties. According to the counsel fQ:t’the_Tj
Tribunal did not eensidexjthe evidence
claimant and that the eeIti’p.:ei’1sati0ii~.eWt:i’dedHeh all
heads requires to be ~-this and he
further contends award any
eompensatiogi”i’}1ider:;._the loss of income
even though shortened by 1″ and
that ha5″be’§11 reduced. He further
eontehydsl ef the doctor has not been
considered. the rbelow.
Per At;-er1_t_1fa,, the learned counsel for the
v:Ai11.s_dt11*ahee_’ACQmpany supported the Orders of the
“‘T1*’ih111iaId;” ~, _
5., Hatfihg heard the eeunse} for the parties, the
only petht to be Considered by us is,
‘Whether the Compensation awarded by the
tfihunal is just and proper?’
6. After eonsidering the evidence let in by the
parties and the judgment and award of the Tribune} we
are cf the eptniean that the Tribunal has not at 21%}
Considered the ease of the claimant pt%fo15er1T*§—
awarding eempertsatien. Therefore, we.-a1’e–.i;::c1:ne§ fie”
reconsider the entire rr1atter=, by»za;jpre<:iatir:V§§er.___
evidence Iet in by the partieés.-.___
7. It is not in drisputevrtthatithereiaimarit”Sustained
compound eomminuted f1*aCt.L9£re 0_ftib.ia–and fibula and
he was in the }_1es_pita1’VVfrO1h 2je«.§3~..2em,.£§ 8.10.2001 and
that there___ie lower limb. In
the eirc1_;rh’sta11e–e:_, to award ‘<'30,000/-
underhthe V and suffering.
Th0r:ghVth’e Vttaimant has been treated at
“Vv”‘v..G0{terr1mehet Hee§p’i’taI, this Court cannot forget that he
m§g’rt»: sufficient money towards attendant
et3argges,.’e%:2r:i/eyanee, neuriehing feed and attendant
chargeaahd medical expenses. Therefore, on his head
hf” xtr/fetare inclined to award ?15,000/».
9. During the taideup period the eiairnant eeutd
not have run his autoriekshaw and therefore, we are
irreiirsed to award a sum ef :<'9,CIG€}/~ uffiéifil" the head less
at' income during laidmup period.
('V
6
l0. As there is _vl”‘<.)'f rlght lower
limb he has to limp feetiie Heleannot run
or walk like an _Qrdinar}iVt_I1aIl'V__a1;tqrfigg about 28
years on the2_'dlat;etoVf suffer with this
disability V Therefore, We are
the head loss of
amenifies in'life.f'fi..l __
11', So far future loss of income is
<:0n(;err1_ed,llthe"Trihunal has not at all awarded any
Thelevidence of the d0et0r~PW2 has not
When the claimant has 20% disability
to wh:dl;e'd:;body, the loss of future income has to be
assessed at ?600/« p.m. (33,000 x 20%) and €7,200/~
V. per___ahfium and the same has to be multiplied by the
l "';Iiu1't:iplier 17 considering his age as 28 years.
-*’-Therefore, under the said head he is entitled to
?l,22l400;’-.
Thus, in all the elalmant is entitled te a sum ef
%”l.,92§4~O{}/» with interest at 59/0 pa. from the date of the
petition till realisation, 5 y
7,
ii)
iii)
‘mi
12. In the result, we pass the
oeoee,
The appeal is allowed
The impugned of the tribunal
is modifi_et{,___ Viawarded by the
fnabgnéi??$ ~§gh§fice: ‘flea; eeexxxxu to
. d’V’The’:*e1ih’ahoe:dweompensation comes
‘eevrries interest at 6% p.21.
from the of petition till realisation.
;’Oi1t of-.the’1enVhar1(:ed Compensation, 3 sum of
1@.A.O0O/¥V’W’ith proportionate interest is ordered
invested in the name of the
claimant for a period of five years. He is
[S
eiititiedd to withdraw the interest accrued on the
deposit periodically. Rest of the Compensation
= Shall be released to the Claimant.
eéi-it
ieégg
eege
iefiee
