IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER BEFORE _ ' ' L. A' THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. 4. _ »
M.F.A. No.2872/_2og.7 ‘
M.F.A,.566/2007,»’M.F.A.56’7/2007’AND
M.F.A.2S’73/2oo7_
IN M.F.A. 2872 / 2007:
BETWEEN: ”
THE NEW: If~lDIA§_’ASSUR1\,NCE. _CO.”:LTD.,
DIV1S1c.3NA;I.»I’ OFFICE_ No.1 1.. ” ”
4TH EI;OGR;v.T’:OWI«;R_ I3.LO.r}”:K,_’ *
UNKTY B~iUILDING._AN_NExE, c. ROAD,
IvREPI.I3T”vIIfI*S DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
‘ I ” .. ‘ …APPELLANT
(By Sri. RAIJIJ,A;4Ii)Vuf)CATE)
* N_.’vE1$III ._S/O. SR1 NARAYANASWAMY,
* A(3~.ED ABGUT 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR
‘- REPVQBY FATHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN:
NARAf&’ANASWA1»IY @ NARAYANA,
‘ R’/AT NUDUGURKI, KASABA HOBLI,
BIDALURU POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
” BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
AND
I. 35/8. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
DO-2, TOWER BLOCK, UNITY BUILDING 2
J. C. ROAD, BANGALORE. ” ‘ u ” :.-
2. SR1 MANJUNATH,
S/O. NARAYANAPPA D. HOSUR~,–.
CHICKKABALLAPUR TQ., ‘ ‘
KOLAR DIST.
(By Sri. P. B. RAJU ADVOCATE-§’OR R1,’; ‘ —
NOTICE TO R-2 IS SERVED) ‘
THIS IS AN APPEALjEII..ED«..,U/’S., 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT’AND AwARD._DATED 23/8/O6
PASSED IN MVC NO.567?O’/.O4–.ON T”I.I.E”Ir{:I’I.;E OF 14TH ADDL.
JUDGE, MEMBER, COURT” OF SMALL CAUSES,
MET*ROPOI.ITA:-N AREA, R BANGALORE”‘ (SCCH~ 10), PARTLY
ALLOWING ,T”II,E””{:I.AI1S2I.., PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ;E;§IIIANC_EM’ENTV_OE COMPENSATION.
IN M,’Igf.A.’567’/2WI)ci7: ” %
BETwEEN.,% – ‘
~ SRI MUNINAR….A,YANAPPA,
_ S/fO MADALAPPA,
AGED. ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R./’AT. AVATHI VILLAGE DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
” ~ DEV’PgNI’kHALLI TQ.,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
” . …APPELLANT
V’ ” A. ” IBy,Sri, K. R. MURALIKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)
. . »
AND
I. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO L’I’D..
REP. BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER, »
DO-2 TOWER BLOCK UNITY BUILDING
ANNEXE J. C. ROAD. BANGALORE.
2. SR1 MANJUNATH, 4′ ._
S/O. NARAYANAPPA D. HOSIURQ” ~
CHICKKABALLAPUR TQ., ‘
KOLAR DIST.
(Sri. P. B. RAJU, ADVOCATE EOR:RI;
NOTICE TO R-2 IS SERyED}.I” – I
THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED :.I._/’S._’;.I. 73(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE grUDGIvIENTj”.AND=,AwARD” DATED 23/8/06
PASSED IN JVIVCV .’NO.%36’Z1%O4’~O’N:fTH_E§ FILE OF THE 14TH
ADDL. JU.D’G4E:*:j, V_MEM;BER. -.EvIACT.. COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, IvIE:TROPOLITAN AREAQBANGALORE (SCCI-I-10],
PARTLY.._ PETITION FOR
COMIéENSATION’V ‘1 AND”’~«.__SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSAIIIONQ _
M.F.A.2sVx7’3g 20% ‘
g ….. .. V
I If ” THEINEi}V~–INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD..
._ ADIVIISIONIAL OFFICE NO. 1 1, 4TH FLOOR,
. TOWER BLOCK. UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
J.,_C’. ROAD. BANGALORE 27.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
” …APPELLANT
–,(‘1-3y P. B. RAJU ADVOCATE]
V RE$P_(51\IDEN’ISV
|–u0
MUNINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
S/O. MADALAPPA, §
R/AT AVATHI DR. RAJKUMAR..RQAD,j
DEVANAHALLI TALUK, ‘ ‘
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. ~ ‘
S/O. SR1 NARAYANAPI>A;”-~..
R/ATD. IIOSUR,
CI-IIKKBALLAPUR – I
KOLAR DISTRICT.-._ 2
2. SR1 MANJUNATH,
”
(Sn. K. R. “ADi;7OCATI:’IrOR R1;
NOTICE TO”R:2VISv-S,ERVI?.D’:~–.___
TI-IISLISII’.AN*;API>EAL’ E1I;.’ED’°U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST AND AWARD DATED 23/8/06
PASSED _IN 3.LiNO’;5S:7<I")04 ON THE FILE OF 14TH
ADDL..JUDGE," .Iv;jEM:3ER; MACT, COURT OF' SMALL
CAUSES; ME'I ROPQ_LITAN AREA, BANGALORE (SCCH-10),
_ '-A COMPENSATION OF RS.94,0O0/- WITH
RATE OF 6% RA. FROM THE DATE OF
PE'1' ITION DEPOSIT.
‘THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR EINAL HEARING
V’ ‘THIS–..DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5. The learned counsel for claimants would justify the
impugned award.
6. The claimant in MFA.566/2007 is a”:fir_l:nq1~.:b’¢§;
the claim petition is filed by hisffather.p_ ll/luninvairayianlappa, b
Who is also a claimant in
established from evidence –.V§r’1..yprecoI’d, ‘ llclavimant
MFA567/07′ along hispytwo. children lnahrelytib/lst. Venu
(claimant in MFA566/it were travelling
in a maxi cab_.l’As Urnesha died
and the namely Mst. Venu and
the claiman’t*Vti.n suffered injuries.
7’, “In the as many as 15 persons were
injured and the’driver cab and the said Mst. Umesha
‘l V’ , ‘died’ irithe .acciclent}” lln the circumstances, if the police have
the claimants in the aforesaid appeals as
c1i1arge¢.sheje’€yvitnesses, that cannot be a ground to contend
that “they were not travelling in the vehicle involved in the
vacclident. It also looks improbable that the claimant in
4% (,4 _o
(iii) Two lacerated injuries over left
temporal region each measuring 2
cm, muscle deep;
[iv] Lacerated wound over bridge r A’
nose 5 X 0.5 cm, tenderness otter
lower 1/3 of right leg; ”
(V) Comminuted frac’:j,.’uref_ggoI_”jV “‘}.o\’3v’er«..: 4’
1/3 of right tibia; V ” ” ‘
10. The Tribunal hasiawardcdt of ” V L’
Rs.53,000/– under following g l
(1) Pain if _ Rs.35,0OO/W,
[11] Medic-91.e$}lf3§1Sel§’,f:,_ Rs.4,000/-
(iii) --V .- Rs.4,000/- (iif)" : Rs. l0,000/ -
11″; u “The treated claimant was not
examined before the The claimant was a young
Dy-‘.e._g;ge,d. Tgyearsvvlllatlv the time of accident. Therefore,
u.consider_Vi;1Vg= thiegnature of injuries and residual effects of
‘*.fi’ribunal tinder the head loss of amenities is enhanced to
injuries, Vthewcompensation of Rs.i0,000/– awarded by the
11
[i] Pain and agony : Rs.50,000_/-
(ii) Medical expenses : A’
(iii) Conveyance & = ‘l :
nourishment :
[iv] Loss of income during ‘ _j » A * ” A’
treatment : i H lVRS.:9~00Ql)’«7_
(V) Loss of amenities; . _
[Vi] Future medical__ef{penses : .R”s.V5ii00O/-
15. The learned would submit
that claimant iisé the disability
would come’ vl’::oc:ct1pation. Therefore. the
Tribunal’ :5′ *f1r:a.vejl.l compensation under the
head loss and loss of future earnings.
From the evidence Ramalingaiah, it is clear that
, A c1airnant_had fracture-___left humerus proximal third.
it through records, I find that the injuries
siiffered would not interfere with his occupation.
. ‘ The claimant has failed to establish functional disability.
1 i
: f
r\~s A **»»»«l?’\« ‘W’ ‘
12
After going through the impugned award, I am of the
considered opinion that compensation awarded
Tribunal under the head loss of amenities is .
side; so also under the head future medicaZi:’_e2EperLses. “‘
Therefore, compensation of Rs.2C):;_QOO/a~..:’aWai~d’ed
Tribunal under the head loss of arrtenviticsp is3eniiance_d to
Rs.30,000/- and compensationdviéidoiv:Rs:5,(iiO0k ‘awarded by
the Tribunal towards is enhanced to
Rs.15,000/–. Thus, is entitled to
total compensatioifitioi V’
15. ‘r;e.suit,’ the foilowingw
.::’o.:i2 D an
‘(icy div:i+*A’;ij5é’6,4_o’*r«. “and MFA.567/O7
i are accepted in part;
it (ii) impugned award is modified;
Compensation of Rs.53,000/–
dd-awarded by the Tribunal in
‘::MVC.5670/O4 is enhanced to
Rs.58,000/– with interest at the
rate of 6% pa. from the date of
petition till the date of realisatfim
; E
,-I j
/ . A ,5
{viii}
{VJ
[Vi]
13
of Rs.94,000/-
Tribunal
Compensation
awarded by the
MVC5671/O4 is enhanced ‘L Z
Rs.1,14.000/– with interest V ‘V
rate of 6% p.a. froifinthetd–ate.;’of:” a
petition till the date-of A
MFA.28’72/O7 MF}\.28T8e/O7u’V”1.:4’V S
are dismissed;
The payin_e’11t w . Eind tinfvestment
shall be”in’»flf1e v1*a.t:1’r>__ as’.eVt>1{red in
(Vvia
ti’-The a:t;011:Ai1«%”iI1:::,tde}3osit shall be
. £1fsi:’;fié:er;é;1’M.A.c.T. and
S:,c.’c
_.H~,:f”1″Q {[1 t. _j3a1jga10re.
Patties’ are ei-irezeted to bear their
C9_Sts.
Sci/-~
RIDGE
in V