Karnataka High Court
Ramachandrappa S/O Muniyappa vs The Regional Manager United India ... on 28 May, 2010
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, Ravi Malimath
49...'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT ~
DATED THIS THE 283"" E})_AY:_(:) F
P§E§fiNT A
THE HONBLE TJJPQ/1Us.:_T1gf'ET"&{,_a.vHA.KTHAi}ATsALA
"
.... RAVI MALIMATH
M1scEL4LT,wE'QQ'S' F1 P;f5TJAPPEAL NO.256O OF zoosuwvg
EEEWEEN: """
_SVr'i= Ra».ma;éi=1a":;.drappa
' = A "Agedv a'b0_u'i, 57 years,
S/o Mzmiyappa,
Re.sidiAng at Ankonciahalti Vitlage,
Bang_a3~rpet (TQ)
'A 'Kptar (District). ...APPELLANT
'('BAy Sr; Mushtaq Ahmed, Sn' Seenappan
Sri Suresh N, Advocates)
AND:
11.. The Regional Manager
United Endia Insurance Co. Ltd:;,~~
No.25, M.C5.Road, 1
Bangalore.
2. A.P.Gopii<rishna
Aged about '50 years V, _
S/o A.M.Ponnuranga'«--Mu.dalj_ar'
No.47, Mohan Mansilon, '' "
Kasturba Road, ' A
Bangalore.-_
3 . Th e Reg Ma n r _
The New 'i3_n;d_ia Asst: rai_ncei'Col";Ltd .,
M,,!ssi,o_n'Road:,;:__ »
E:_anga_lore.,
4. Sri"\/enug-opa§..f_ " ,_
Aged tabout S7 '«,{e"ars't'
. S/o So'nnego»?vda'-
g'5,DalAsarahal'li'-,.__ _
Ba'n_qarpet (TQ)
l{.gl'a,r'{_D'*ivs_trlct) ~ ...RESPONDENTS
* §VriV"--ll?;--B'.[¥iaju, Advocate for R1, Sri Rv,.R's_ja'.gAopalan, Advocate for R3, R2~.S'e.rved & R4-- notice dispensed with) >i<>l<>k This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of MV Act against the Iudgrnent and award dated 4.5.2004 passed in MVC.No.2149/2002 on the file of the V Addl. Judge, Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore (SCCH No.20), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhanc«e-nfi_en_'t"'.j'of compensation.
This MFA coming on .for»..éheeiiriinvg"st-Viothtiis,'_'_r»da-§.(,u"» Dr.l<.Bhai<thavatsala 3., delivered,'the_Afoijio"wing:~i--__ 3UCZiGlVi'ii'7tNT Al The appeilant--ci4a'i:nr1an:t"in: on the file of Small ACauses,....P}'la.yo'V__vrial5-"'*~u'r;.*»iItr2¥iciditional MACT, (CCH iiligiobargie this Court under Section Act, 1988, for modifying the impugned Iludgnnent 8.: made in the above said Case» it L [A brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal by the appellant may be stated as unders- The appeliantwclairnant filed a claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the owner and insurer of bus bearing l\lo.KA-01~C--7000 and L Maxicab bearing No.i<A--O8~A---4554 involvedinMth"e.',§.cci:d.eii.t that occurred on 12~2~2002 atmabout'"7'.=3.0j,;5:rn';_ claimant has sought for compensaitiofnof-i.rI{s.S';C'@.iO3Q/~ towards personal injuries Sustailnedl in =t:he_j's.ai_d.§mot:>r' accident. The Tribunal heid occurred due to the contributory of the bus driver and maxicab at theyratehot"V-duel?/o'."'a_.ndV".[459/o, respectively, and amounting to Rs.7€n,33i3,/yf interest at the rate of 6% per Petition till realisation and directed the Companies to deposit their» share ihe appeliant is before this Court prayirilg forflyenhanlcement of compensation on the ground has not awarded adequate compensation. .. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-- 'C-lairnant submits that the appellant sustained head injury the motor accident and treated as inpatient. Subsequently he has taken follow up treatment but he L couid not become normai. Therefore, he coL.iid--._"'not discharge his duties as saiesman of Taiuk'A.Agri{:u"itAi,i'i"'auiA Produce Co--operative Marketing S.oC_i'ety_" Litid". ',:'.';Ba'r:;i_?iéFi3'Ggt'é it Taiuk, Koiar District. Hence, he tzooiéfvoviuntari/jretiirernenr and the same was accep_t'ed and the i'cia'i:rh'awn.t"jwas'-i permitted to retire and th_usg,__.athe._ 'c~iaiman"t._has_,:sustained permanent disabiement: :but".thé,VTrébiinai-has not awarded adequate compensation"tovi.iards_ai_i theheads. _ _A1LLeavrn.ed,co.un~s__eis appearing for the Insurance Companie_s4'submit"tha:_t""t.h'e'compensation awarded by the Tribixnai is xadeVc;'u'ate'V'and there is no good ground for " en'h"anc':einen.t. of compensation. 5,; ' have perused the triai Court records. if According to the medical reports, the claimant sustained fracture of arc of zygomatic ieft; fracture of uflwiposterior iaterai orbitaf wall and fracture of rhaxiiiary and haematoma. The claimant was admitted to R.L.Jaiappa i«/ Hosgitai where he was treated as inpatient to 16-2-2002 and CT scan was taken. The'V_A4_:*{.rVibij'::a_1 awarded compensation in favoutlof thecla'i.m':a'nt__a's,V
1. Loss of earnings for-.Ei"\"i9/€riod" of ' it one month _ -. '_ 4,058/--
2. Follow uptrea'trnen"t._if _Rs. 300/-
3. Attend;an_t's 7 Rs. 250/-
4. :§»r.iad'ii.ea.i.e;§r:en'seis { Rs.26,5o7/-- S, '§;cAoio_tVe_r_ m.a:qev__cha*rdVes Rs. 720/- % 6.' of amenerites Rs. 8,000/-
itain & sariemg Rs.34,ooo/--
it nourishment Rs. 2,500/-
Rs.76,33S/--
There is no dispute that the appeiiant--~<:ia':n'aant was working as a salesman for T.A.P.C.M.S. Ltd., and drawing gross salary of Rs.5,521/w. A sum of Rs.5D/-- is deducted [/K/t at para--35 of the Judgment while considering expenses of the claimant a sum of Rs.3,_95.5_/*.' rejected on the ground that there iispgno ground that those medicines' purchased are not .vrhénti.oh'ed"ug in the discharge summary. that the ciaimant has sustaihed_...'he'ac.i_V:din§u%r§'._V_a..nd..several "fractures it would meet th_e ehvd.s..,:'of., a sum of m:ed'ic:al':*V.e'xp.ehses and a sum of RS.1O,Q'Q{E)/.7"Va rrredical expenses. The cEairftant_ _f.orVV'Vreasohable compensation toward'sx._oTther we award the compensation ih4;r'a"\/ogur of 'theciaimant as underc- _ gt 'ta suffering g Rs.40,000/-
2;.V'v'M_e.€jiVcal expenses Rs.30,000/~ . 'Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/« period of treatment and rest
4. Loss of earnings during the ' Rs.5,471 x 1 month } RS. 5,471/-
charges and special diet {M
5. Attendants charges,conveyance ¥ J ._9...
expenses for a period of 1 month
6. Loss of amenities of life it Total 'Fgg:..1»,.o«o,'¢..:"7*~3i./--'~_ Less: compensation amiarded V by the Tribunal _ ht . Jf%7fi33S,/-- \4,--
rm Rs. 24.36/-
._..,,._...__._..s....___.._......_..._...,......_._ .'Thusfl"th'é::;, entitled for additional com nsation .
T' in the re'sult,."'the appeal is partly allowed with costs jxthat appellant-claimant is entitled for of l;{s.1,004,71/~ as against Rs.76,335/-- la--wa:'dedA«:""Aby the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned is qudgrment 8: award are modified. The Respondents 1 & 3» 'the Insurance Companies are directed to deposit 60% and 40% of the additional compensation amount of L ...1g.._ Rs.24,13E>/-- along with costs and interest with the Tr;bi;«n.:»§i_'» within two months from today. F Rsk/_ _ . . i . --i;'::;': " .1