Shri Shaheed Ahmed vs Shri Shankaranarayana Bhat on 1 April, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 29]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Shaheed Ahmed vs Shri Shankaranarayana Bhat on 1 April, 2008

Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 (NOC) 2694 (KAR.) = 2008 (5) AIR KAR R 460, 2009 (1) AJHAR (NOC) 163 (KAR.) = 2008 (5) AIR KAR R 460, 2008 (5) AIR KANT HCR 460, 2008 A I H C 3664, (2009) 3 ACJ 1448, (2009) 1 CIVLJ 184

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

 - (By   Adv.)

 "  Kmpa Road

-1-

in THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA arr"   ,  
DATED THIS THE 1" bAV£_0E-  5
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTI{2E 
M.F.A. No.'368$(.§wC)
Shahced          V
S/0     «. '
Aged ab(s'z1t';"35_*fi.;   -- _ 
No.l5{},'4'33      .
Lower Paiace  "

Sadashivanagar ._  _ 

1".  Bhat
S10 Harayania Bhat
Kam;akShiP31YH. Bangalore.

 New India Assurance
 Company Limited
Bivisional Oﬁice IV

Bangalon:-560 001.
By its Managcr. .. Rcspondcnts

(By Sri M.P. szilmmh. Adv., for R2)

 



-3-  
30.11.2004

and 10.12.2004. The awarded compensation of Rab 1,000] -.

4. The 'I'n'bunal. has not "

under the head of medical -age medical axpenses Howw, only an amount i:§'Jwa:*ds incidental

5.. & bill issued by Mallya : records is for Rs.l,22,300/-. The detail of the expelw mourned V" is mt disputed, consequently the V;'.)§_.doubtseti. Thus, it can sdcly takm that has spent about Rs.1,22,300/- towards It has also come in the evidence of the VA t that he got ream' bursment of the expenditure by him from Royal Sundaram Insmmloe Com. VA ' as Mediciaim 'nlsmmwc beneﬁt. Manly because the V -3- advantage would have no correlation to the for which compensation is oompute§i.""'Amy_ or receivable not only on accidental injunes' but also 'woulhti 'iggivxé claimant even {)th€I'WiSt1,'"t0 be a 'pecuniary advantage', Thus, the Mediclaim S insurance be deducted from out to _ ﬁg the claﬁ' 1:.

7. Thti by the clam1an° t haein under hlsuranm Cmnpany would Qtsiztc periphery of Mater Vehicles Act to be as advantage' liable for deduction. When. ytv'eV}s)nI1cih' 4' 'pic of loss and gaan," it has to he on snmhr' ' Piﬁilti having nexus inter 542 between them and not there is no aemblanzrc-' of any eormlaturzn.' The (deceased/injured) comributes his own money for which he receives the amount, has no oorreiaiml to the V

-9 ..

compensation computed as mainst the tortfmsmyf his negligence an amount of the amidcnt. As amtmnt receivable as compensation wider. ., i Act is on account of injury without making any t1osr1t1'ibuti«rm__ .tmi€m.*ﬁs it. 2 v fruits of the amount received of the insured cannot be A receivable under Motor vemies that the eomp-ensation:_ Act is statutory, while the Life Insurance Policy or Medicliaitnx 8.5. of mine is supported by the nr th?_Api:§i"'C{iuIt in the case of Hahn c. Rescue anoth¢r(19991lCJ10). Thcveryview

- -. lithe Bench of this Court in the ease of «to mus 4% (2002 ACT 154;; by the Eﬁivisiion Beach 01' Allahabad High Court in the case (if \\/P

-13- T T mew GUPTA mam ommsm sum or (LP. (zoos ACJ 1739;; by the Fun Haryana High Court in the wee >1' £ﬂNEﬂI-¢a-Gﬂl£ﬁuuﬂln;&HD«OG$HRS]Fi983]§©Uf3ééklﬁ@u the Madhya Pradesh High TV}: A Rmaneeaa stars sump tkameeeefvgmuexmmeennv.ann mworm -up rnrrmm Lexy: Bombay Hégn Ceurt in the man: ---u-

.aA£ﬂauu%-Zoﬁiéﬁﬁiiﬁ:ﬁdeﬁeﬁﬁifyyhekithatdmdxxmkxaef amount of clmmant by a djiferent insmmxoe 1.e:1~:_iei{:_v.é1' is not pennissibie.

the employer insures his empioyee ﬁler death arising out an accident, any out ef such insurancae cm the happelmxg of may be an ametmt liable for deductiou. This . use, the employee receives the amount wittluut 11$ eeeehibuﬁon This is based on the principle that the V5

-12..

12. The doctor has opined that T'has» suffered 15% disability of the «L '1m,L' * appears to be on the higher sizing. Héieszféver, from the evidence at' the it.' am is restricﬁon in the movenqcgm u£,, ,¢; unable to cnmb steps, diffi(:u_Jty pwéoss legged. me claimant is a_ V' himself has admitted from the cabb busixxessié the vehicle. Having regard to the totality circumstances, the cimm t 'V might" disability of the whole body. 'l'here évisvigieriaec with regard to probable loss 01"" future:

men' But the fact re-mast" 1a that the V V r:;1a.1mv ' "$uﬁ'ered at least about 10% G189.' biiity of the He has to be campexasated for the same under of loss of future axnenities ad' Rs.-10,()00/-- ' "**§:fc5iiId be appropriate czompensation under the same head. Accordingly, the same is awarded. xv' -13-

13. As the claimaxlt. has to operation for removal of i~ Rs.20,000/- towards future éx,; )eI1ses."'V*A~ .. 2 V The amount of Rs.8,£Iv()(.l' f«. 'l'rii)una1 towards ioss of is just and proper and the same is -2123 it is. V --- Thus, iii is entitled to total 'y, the following order is 1' V. % u .

Awarci' is modified. The claimant- oompensaﬁon of RS.2,45,000/-- lsfxki1s ibrtyﬁve thousand only}, which is ' V' iI1o}ug_$ irre amount already awarded by the 'I'ribuna1, "~..«.. \?;?_iiI1 6%_ir;'aterest p.a. on the enhanced compensation from of petition till the date of realisation. Award shall ' accordingly. 50% of the award amount shall be .. ..deposited in any Nationalised Bank of the claimant's choice for a period of three years. The ciaiImmt--appelhnt is at W V*bklbsn%fAA' &

-14..

liberty to withdraw the accrued interest 'i'he remaining amount shall be T. appellant.

Appeal is allowed in

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court