H ' Smt; fiSh1':vanmda, Adv. for R2)
« Misc. First Appeal is filed tmdcr Secfion 173(1) of
mic No.2'e'9/2003 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),
"Member, MAC'?-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, partly
the claim petition for compensation and scszslcing
-1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATES THIS THE IST3 DAY 01'» NOVEMBER 2003
BEFORE A %%
THE HOBVBLE MR.JUS'I'lCE SUBHASH 3.19231' % ; f _
Thimmappa,
S] 0. Chikkagangappa,
Aged 53 years,
Mahadtavapura, Lingcnahalli,
Nc1amanga1aTaI'uk V ' j " "
B.-zurzgalrxre. _ {j 1 .. APPELLANT
(By Sn'. Shripad V. S.ttavst1i,:'!.:'.*.h§.}:~.
AND:
1.
M. v. =.sut;rmaan.ya_”% _ ._
SURMS. Mmor__
Ma1ava11i;_ ~
Manciya Disizict-5? 14.30;’ ”
_ India Ass-t:::anoe Co. Ltd.,
V ‘Rcgionai Oficel,
vllxriiy Mission Roaei,
‘Byits Marigzg-Er. …RESPmIm:N’rs
‘M .V.’;-‘kzt against the judgment and award dt. 28.03.2007 passed
enhancement for compensatéczn.
This Appml coming on for Hearing this day. the Court
delivered the following:
s.[.§.D.§.
This is claimanfs appeal against the judment
in M.V.C.No.279/2003 datm 236: March 2007 on
M.A;C.T.–III,&nga1e1~c Rural District. Bangalore. AL
2. Claimant sustained grievous.” ii1j’u:’y&_ izgn ‘-éf $31 ‘
accident of a bus bcann’ g No.KA—-1
travelling. He alleged that. on sting :a,s1:_ ‘ i:
driving of the said bus, 1:’ dashg: §”;5;ai::s: of
anothcrbus. ” ‘
3. There is ‘%ccident and the
injuxy not disputed by
the Insur3’V’n”{§Vé t afleged that. in the
accxd’ cant, fielias of left humerus and rad1a1′
nerve paigy ofi” ~tt1e 1:711 In this regard, he has produced
héhee$.~’Ex.P? — discharge summary. Ex.P2 –
has also examined the doctor as PW-2. The
TI:!.”bu@’ the and” mac granted oompcnsation as
under:
V ‘ and sufiering – Rs. 20.0001»
*2. ‘Tmvarcis hospital charges Rs. 25,300]-
3.t’I’¢wa’rtia attcmziant charges R. 1,100/-
V~ _4′.’ Towfivazds outpatient charges Rs. 700/-
. 5;’ Towards extra nuurishlmint 85
” “6. Towards loss of earning during }aid~up pefiod Rs. ‘K500,’-
‘ 7
” ‘ V. transportation charges Rs. 3,000/–
P’
. Tuwaxtls loss of fulum causing
R8.1,07,I00[-
W
:_’j’6n.thc bags of and even on the other hcws, the
H the Tribunal considczfmg the evidence of the
also considcrizng the nature of injmy has taken the
A %g§§pm§fiam disability. it is submitted that. then: is 60%disahi}ity
eiupper arm. the Tribuna} has rightly taken 11411: of the same
” and has determined the Boss of future earning. it is also
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant suhmittscq that,
the claimant is a cache and there is a tiefortmity in the’
arm; fixed fie:-cion deformity of the left elbow at * ,
of the left elbow by another 20°; shox”tc__:,1i1ag of V’ »
by 3 ems; abduction of the lcfi shcr t1l§e:_ 1f’
terminal 200; tenderness over tht:=1::pV1a)t:r :–a:..*tn’; ;
deformity of the lcfi; hand; loss of ‘iirstdvficfi dorsal
web space. Considering :’t}_1zvéA.Al)onc:tor assessed
the disability 40% :9 the lqcfti for the left
hand. However, £216 ié$§ disabifity to the
whole body. ifthcre is deformity
of the azm; %Ah§ c a:;§:gt_ work. The Tribunal is in
error in nét u”#ppropriatc disability. He also
submittcgi not awarded any compensation.
compensated.
5 .”=- Counsel for the Insurance Company
\
%&
I E, .
%’f¥1t*1=’e t
-4-
submitted that, on the other hwds, the Tribunal has reasonably
compensated.
5. It is not in dispute that, the claimant
it is also not seriously disputed as regmds to
by the doctor. From the injuries, it
flexion deformity of the left elbow at tut &Xt0A I ‘
left efbow by another 200 and shortening mg by 3″
ems. These deformities on the
ea.mm’ g capacity of the c}a11na” VA __ly, the ciauna11′ t
being a Coolie, he xetjuixesfiz’ in the hands to
carry on his it is taken. as 1/491 of
the uppertvlinfi); of the injury and the job
that the of the opitzfwn that. it can be
_..ta1¢;e11 at; on body. If that is 30. towards loss of
is entitied for Rs.29,700/-
«A§§s’.’49,5O0/–)., Similmiy as regards to the
tvvtvamenifies nothing has been awarded by the
H H z this head, the claimant is entitled for Re.15.0G0/–
H V « cf amenities. As xegmds to the other heads. the
is entitled for another R3.1(),DOO/- towards pain &
” Though the Tribuxaal has awarded medical expenses to
the tune of bills produced by the claimmt, but it is not always
onhr the bills amount that the clamxant would be spending on the
-5-
medical expenses. but there would be incidental expensgs.
may not be available in the form of bills. In my
claimant could be awarded Rs.10,000/-
expenses. Towards less of earning
enhanced to Rs.9,0(}01– instead of
income of the claimant at Rs.3;{):Cf).]-. afl, L’
entitled for Rs.66,i..>0O/— “over
awanied by the Tribunal annum from the
date of pctiizkz-n till the date V
With this partly alrmcd.
Sd/-
Judge