High Court Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd … vs Chi Manjunath on 19 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd … vs Chi Manjunath on 19 January, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 19m DAY OF JANUARY§';"'2'C}5'£VdQ Sf  _

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE :';VE.EEVjA*GANN'ri'.f]_Tf£«IAN:Vf_

M.F.A.NO.7122/2056 (II/IV)

BETWEEN:

THE: NEW INDIA ASSURANOI3: cOI;;'-I;I'jO.,"'-».._
BELGAUM DO, ' 4_   
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OF'_F'iC'E_u7   " .
AT NO.2mB, UNITY BUILDINGVANNEXE,   ._ 
MISSION ROAD, 4:' ._ 3'  _  - 
I3ANGALORI;--55o'    'V 

REP. BY ITS Iv!I§{E;~fAC§ERI' I
SRLC.R.SI,I--BRA1\r1.AN'i§';%§...'    APPELLANT

(By Ad'v.}

AND

_ VCHTLMANJLINATH ~  V V
 A-GED-___1'I 'IHEARS,  ---------- 
-,S /O IRAPPAI I~I.A'rI.DT, "

R/f0' KASH'}.I§?ET',* RA-MDURC},
DISTsR_I:..LG-A'LI,M..VV'-I'
BEING MINOR--,':._RI:.P. BY HIS GUARDIAN 85

V E' FATHER SR1 I-RAPPA SANKAPPA NANDI.  RESPONDENT

H ” IS:~i_.Jagé.dish Patii, Adv.)

appeai iS filed under Stecipion E73 (1) Of MV Act.
VZ:'”zgai17?1SL the judgment and award dated 15.04.2006 passed in

,>_\<;;?33'/

l\J

MVC No.53?/2003 on the file of the Member, Addl. MACE',
Saundatti, awarding a Compensation of Rs.l,90,000/s–"'with
interest at 8% pa. from the date of petition till realisation;

This appeal coming on for hearing, this

delivered the following:

JUDGMEfi$d®

Heard the learned counselfor the’aplpellantliiagidalearlneid

counsel for the respondentwclaimalritiiinuresgaeetioi the appeal
preferred by the InsuranCe4_._C«om1aan.§,rVehallenging the quantum

of compensation awarded

2. ;u¢Sri.B.C.See’thara–ina wflearned counsel for the

appellant-=i’nsu.ranceili1?om’pany submits that the MAC’? has
awarded huge Co_1ri;§g;..n.l§atiVoniVll”under various heads totalling

Rs.3,90,0OO/9*-._for sustained by the minor boy

.–vv.whichr~”5:A;ere’ all sirriple____injuries and loss of one incisor tooth.

V”~Th-‘.’3l1V”V(‘3’l”,)V]’€~,._{l’l€”C6i1’1p€I’lS8.tiOI1 be reduced under all the heads.

3. Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent»

l”~’««___el»aimant’ the other submitted that the compensation

awarded does not require any modification by way of reduction.

14.)

4. Having thus heard ‘both sides, taking note of the injuries

sustained by the claimant which are mentioned in EXL§),§’«.”‘Li1€j

wound certificate, it is observed that out of the .

were abrasions and one was the rnu1t.irpie ab=.”asio–n’_’vand o.n1’_=;

grievous injury is the loss of upper inciisor:1’to0th.’trin. theifiég’h_..t

the aforesaid injuries sustained by’~t_he claimant, tvcoiinpensation

awarded by the Tribunal underlfivarious found in
paragraph 13 of its “modification by way of
reduction. Therefore, the head of loss
of amenities amount given
towards loss towards permanent
disabilitygand disallowed. However,
under theiiiheiadiof ofi’dii_sfiigurement of the face, a sum of

Rs.§O,QO0/- bie…’~aw’ard”ed. Towards medical expenses,

T Rs. 3iO”,iv()ifJ0gfe is awardiedaind towards attendant and conveyance

ch_a’rges’ awarded. Towards pain and suffering, a

sumof is awarded. Thus, the compensation

works out Rs.62,OO()/A in all.

T < .y_'I_ihus, the compensation given by the Tribunal is modified

the claimant is actuaily entitfed to Rs.62,000/« with

}r"

interest as given by the Tribunai. The appeai is therefore

allowed wéih the above modificatiorl in the award a1neu’r1t;.:W.Tk%e

excess amount if aiready paid to the elaimanii

recovered by the Insurance C0mpany_i.1t1 .acco1_–‘dé£fiee’_”witthv’Eawu.

The amount in deposfi; made by the ifisuraiexeje

this Court be refunded to it. V ”

e-Sd/
e %JUDGE

Jm/–~