IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE9J"" DAY OF FEBRUARY
BEFORE:
THE. HON'BLE MR. JUSTECE ANAND BYRAREDDY { ,
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAI; No: i224'3»C3'E' 2006
BETWEEN:
Vasanth Kumar, 38 years
Sf-3 Late Mariyappa
Residiizg at No. 2X3
1 1"" Cross. Chowdappa
Layout, Bapujinagaf _ - _ - '
Bangaiore-26 'V APPELLANT
{By Sh1*§:"'Sripfi.ci' K. G. Bhat, Advocates)
A_1}.J..I_>.;__
V' Qffiéntai 1:1sAuranéé€(:1npany
. 'X..imited~,.D.. (), II, No. 3
Xhei1yf"B_:iiEding? I F1001'
'-I "C3-toss.' Ggtndhinagar
B'angalvo2'£~,:f§¥'
By its Manager
Bharai Farge Limited
Residing at No. 1, Midford
V. §H0use, Midford Gardens Off
i'-J
M. C}. Read, Bangalore-01 RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. A Ravishanker, Advecate for Respondent No, 1 and
Respondent N0. 2 W notice dispensed with)
#$$*$
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed
173(1) of the Meter Vehicles Act against the ___i1_idgem[ent and __ ‘V
award dated 26.6.2006 passed in MVC »No,4333f2OG4»on file of
the 183′ Additional Judge, Men1ber,I»Moto£’jj.Acc’identS–..Clai.{ns’
Tribunal — 4, Court of Small Caiises;._ ihdetrepolitan ”
Bangalore {SCCH–4), partly al–l’o-wing ‘th_e” claizfn’ petition; fern;
compensation and etc.
This appeal havingheen iii”eaervediencl”co1ning on
for pronouncement of Judgment 1-his%§.bciay”;–ti2e Ceurt delivered the
following:- ‘ 1 ‘ ‘
* U@33’_’i-HG ma T
HeatétheConanael£’§§”the’zippellant and the respondent.
” it The ap;§el_lant is. said to have met with 3 road accident
i’~._rei€:.niting injuriea. The appellant was aged abeet 36 and
wnirleiizg Assistant with KSFC and earning Rs_1{),0Ot3.s’-
‘ per :m.:h”.’ ;.That even alter treatment he suffers from a perinanent
‘ tn the extent ef 12% to the whole–boc¥y. The Tribunal
ii awarded Rs.l5=,[}0Of« towards pain and suffering,
:.iRS.5,009§- towards less efamenitées, Rs:,20,0{}0f- towards medical
5
3
and other expenses, Rs.3,GOO.f– towards miscellaneous expenses,
Rs.2,O00:’1- towards less of earnings during treatment and
Rs.i5,000s’– tewards disability, the present appeal is tiled seeking
enhancement.
It is contezsded that medical” bills were preducetii’tet.i_thie:tt-:n’ei_
of Rs.4€),20if-. There was hence an u1V1j”LV1st denial’ in:the”same ::_1i3t” .
hzaving been granted. The Tribunal hats’ alga failed the
claim for fixture medical expensesiifer rernnval _et7viIf;g1§iants’: The V
Tribunal has failed to take, into aceeun’t.the_ perrri3ne.nt..tlisability to
the extent of12%’tt§’tAthe_i$:hele¢bedy and in not considering the
award of cefiipetisationi’–.t0€artirds future loss of earning capacity.
V’ ‘v3:h€’-tliipfil-itlftt also iiseeks-* ‘enhancement under other head of claim.
i V ” ‘regard to the nature of injuries and the treatment
thst appellant had undergone and being left with a permanent
ii””.__iidisabilitgiite the extent of 12% to the whele–b<t)dy, the award of
t:iiiRs;1.5;t}00;'- towards pain and sufl'er£ng is on the lower side and
i ~re.:inires it: be enhanced by a further sum of Rs.lQ,O(3O.5-.
Z
4
The award ef Rs.5iOOOf- towards loss of amenities is also an
the lower side and the same requires tn be enhanced by a further
sum of Rs.25,000i-“–.
4. Though the appellant had produced biils tcfitliel
Rs.40,201:’-, the tribunal has held thattttlm sarne’é1§’eiilejXii§gerated”” it
and has restricted the same to Rs.2O,OO’0./allATl1ié’~is”ni:§t
appellant having produced p(§§sil3l3?_xli:=3.jizing'”ineizrredl”ii
expenses beynnd amounts evid.encedv bills, islentitied to an
additional sum of Rs.30,00t}?Q.e_l’ it
*3, Tlle 4ama_nnt’V”e.fRsi3;QO{}f- tewards conveyance and other
incidental ex;ier2ditu,£§§V–_isi amount having regard to the date
V’ nf ‘{l1c3i..:i;C(:2fie’1l:6I1I ‘being t3’i”‘t”ne year 2004. The appellant is entitled to
da.i_.tfi1ftlier , 6005- under this head nf claim.
i ‘ having restricted the loss of earning during
Elie peritidvnf treatment tn Rs.2,000.r’- is very much on the lower
and requires to be enhanced by a further Still’! of Rs.2000«”-.
€
5
The appellant is entitled to expenses towards future medical
treatmeat as he has to undergo further surgeries and is entitled to a
furtller S1333} of Rs. 1 S,{)0O:’- under this head of claim.
having thought it fit to award a sum of lees
of amenities on account of a large Iidegiree j;oif._
whole-body, it would have been’ju_stified.Viii awastidingigiiileé-eium:
towards the loss of earning capacit}}:.i”‘-7li_hei_3ppellaiitV’is héid entitled
to the sarne- i , L _ i _ ._
Accordingiy: . the appeal’ is al1.Q\§;e(:lf”The Iagipellant is entitled
to additiiimal RiS..1,00,000:’– with interest at 6%
per anirqm t’tO’;n the cleim {ill the date of payment.
3d/-:3
Iudgé