IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
oATEo THIS THE 24"' DAY or FEBRUARY, 2010
BEFORE
THE i-lON'Bl_E MR. JUSTICE A.N.VENUGOPALA':Gfi)\liI_l3.§l4' O ' O
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NC:)J,92:'347 2005
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager,
M/s. Oriental Insurance C_ompany...I,t'd..,"'>._
City Branch, R/a No.1/1,. _
Cannaughat Road, Queens' Roado_Crovss,"§f
Bangalore. " ._
Represented by Etss'/Xgiministratlive'Officer,
The Oriental Insurance Company
Regional OffEce,.l?_o'ac_i_,.__ .
Bangalore. ...APPELLANT
(By Sri. }'§'.M,'..*-'en':i<'atejshl_.:A{l_Q'.-)__ ~ 9
AND; ' ' " '
1. Sri.VCv.N.BOa'l~aji', S/0, C_.E§la"l/aneetham,
Aged about 27'-years,
V' __ R/'V-o_ 8., a7th C'r'o'ss,
. O.ppos_ite.Utt'h--amsagar Hotel,
_ Ba_naisawadil'ma§n road,
" oanganor1e--- 560 043.
it ,1. Sr"l.. C.,T.Torly, Major,
, R/o. ..No._262, 2"" Cross,
xseubbainnapalya,
it lVE.S,Nagara Post,
--.._8angalore --~ 550 033. ...RESPONi3Ei\£TS
(_l3y Sri. Muniyappa, Adv. for R1;
"usrl. Vivekananda Associates, Advs. for R2;
2. Heard iearned counsei and perused the record.
The accident, injuries to the petitioner/15* respondent___and
insurance coverage is not under chaiienge.
3. Sri A.M.Veni<atesh, learned counsel'.__ap.pearingVs,' H
for appeiiant contended that, the aw'aird'*isA_h'ig hiyjAei»iicessi$;eVi"~V
and disproportionate to the nature of.__inj_uries sastained,_"by:V"
the claimant. He contended tha"t,_theV' c!aima_"nt x'wh"o" is a
salaried person continuesto bein sarjne jo_b"andV' hence,
there is no future iossiof"income__:dufe.._"to the injuries
sustained in t.h«e.,_accic;',ent _a:nd.,VA"h'ence "the awarding of
Rs.3,67,,'2(§'O/~~iitsndiéfi'the.;head'._"Vfu'ture loss of income, is
whoiiy u'njustified:."j'j_i;eia'r.n'e:i:'counsei contended that, the
award_rnade"un'der'.*thev_ other heads is also excessive and
'i V' '-hence°,' in-t.er'?e.rence 'i's'"cal|ed for.
Téheioniy point for consideration is:
.’:V:igfi1iether the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is excessive?
is Ciaimant deposed as PW.1 and he has stated
.’ tihat’ he sustained compound fracture of both bones of right
/’
w’
that, he has spent Rs.2,30,000/- towards medical
expenses, the same has been disbelieved by the Tribunal.
Tribunal by taking into consideration Exs.P1O and P11 has
awarded Rs.1,20,000/– towards medical treatment.
8. From the evidence of PW.1, it is clea_r”‘th’a;.,’__’,,iiVe;__Vit
has continued the follow up treatment for about?_n§A-oiit_hszV'”
and had to suffer on account of the inj:uries’,’.,,, E’y’id,er:ce,,:_’of,,,.pi’
PW.2 shows that, PW.1 needsanother”surgery_ft}r.rerho§fal”
of implants from both the limo’s’;~.,’_V’the cost. ‘of’V5wh’i’ch has
been estimated at Rs.3O,;t)_’G0/».’_’AV 1, l
‘that, he was a Software
Engineer inVi”MicroVVSott.’.a’t.:i.nner Ring Road, Koramangala
_._and due’ to the “r§nju_ri’e,s sustained in the accident, he
g_o’A«and”‘*attend his work which resulted in loss of
saiar’y,an’d’e’mo’i’urrients. He has also made a claim on the
–ground that there is loss of marriage prospects.
it Evidence of PW.2 discloses that, he examined
on 8.4.2005 and found that, fractures have clinically
1,
w
is
not stated that he has lost the job. In the circumstances,
there could not have been any award under the head ioss
of future earning capacity. The claimant is certai..ni~y
entitled to loss of amenities and compensation u;{der~ _
heads.
12. Considering the eyidenee reeo_~rd”,~in
opinion, the just compensatiion V. w.hic»h_”‘_: S15’
respondent/claimant is e*’ntitledi»rto isjasV”fo!lows:”””
a) Towards painand st.imig; 50,000/~
b) Towards4_n%.:edi;§fai_.’e>{:p.ens_es j.
and incidejhtawivt:h’afifgesE.4VVV’ % .Mi§s.1,5O,OO0/–
c) Loss of incorne
period, for about 4_months:’ Rs. 50,000/–
d) vE.x.pense.s.§:A:towards f’u’t’ure__t_reatment: Rs. 30,000/«~
e) ATowa;r’d-so Vlos:s=of «amenities: Rs. 75,000/~
2 Loss’ ofrnia rri prospects: Rs. 25,000/–
*-i«i..fj;-j___V”Total: ” Rs. 3,80,000/-