Karnataka High Court
K S Narayanaswamy vs Thiru C Manickam on 28 July, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
EN THE HIGH COURT' arr KARNATAKA AT BANG3:,Q.t§F;_
BATED THIS THE 2233'?! DAY OF JUf,;§5A.;'2l§ C'§§: ~
BEFORE;
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSi'fI:3f3";~!;)x14&AN'D§"i
M.F.A.NC). 1C31 3«--..QF fiacielmail
RFYFWEEN;
1. KSNARAMNASWAMV. _ '-
S[0 SHAYAMANNA
AGFIT) AROEFP '27A,YF1ARs',.. _ '
R'/AT SARA!-{KI , _
KANAKAPUR;g'Rr::;=m, 5
'?"I"H s*TAGE,4*J'.~:=3_.NA::3;AR,..j "
RANGALOF-l'E. _; APPFiI.¥..fiJ'fi'
{By Sri.P.'Pl?2ASAfi>V;'A1fi'.%Ddf£'i'E}
' «L. 'I'i~II§iE{F C M:§.N1c:KA.:vI
' .Sff)..SRI ::3HiN1v'APALYAN,
:~:<;a.2;*z?:.9,, 'TRLI'P§EKANWDAN,
'Pvm run', £3':-EAVANI,
ER.USA,,-€O{I--NDANAPUDHUR,
RAh"€£IRE:DD"{ ?ALYA,
OMA£}URi~TALUK,
= .s:M_-;:tn:{'r>I.§1*1:>ic'r.
A' 2.'~*§'%fiE NEW IN£'2iA ASSURANCE CQMPANY
LIMITED, NC>.468j i, OPP.PflPA'TBAI
V% .V __PF«Y¥'R("")¥. BUNK, SHANNAQPET,
KARAI3' 4 I5 110.
§2EGi(3E\¥AL OFFICE AT NC}.2-B, UFKITY
RiIE'¥J)¥N{'x, MISSION ROAR,
BANGALORE 27. RESPONDENTS
(By Srnt : HARINI SHIVANfiNDA FOR R2':
NCYFICIE'. TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
MFA FILED ms 173(1) o§?=.,Mv;~A¢'I'9;:,;i;a:nlxz:~¢ssrx'*Av.Lfr1r«;iA§:TI
mmssmam mp AWARD mama :2.=s.os,:2oe? PASSED 1N'
NO.2~'H4/2006 on THE FILE Oi?"-ADDITEONAL J!J'£}€3'{E, <::<3';.IR*:'
OF' SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,--.M:%CT, BfkNGALQRE.,"S€Z.CH--59 * L'
PARTLY ALLO'W}NG THE CLAIM PE'I_'I'?¥ON FGR <'f:{?MPE;}\ISA'I'}ON
AND SEEKING EN} IANCEMENT C{}_}\:i'PENSA'FEQN.
This apzpeai, cntfiifig. fin ftzfr this day, the
Caurt, deiivered the fo}1;_3Wi;1g:_ : * I
This'"'Es '":§'1.;§;ig;im:anVt's .;g_pg)e%a} for enhancement. of
com11é:nsatiofi§ * -~ . " '
2. _ Tribimai on the is:-mes of
~. nrfgigfiigfifica ani'3'*--~!.i,;;1_qi)it:y of insurance company have not
' - (;'aHt':d"'vinto question either by the insmrer or
.ififiiiTR(§.'§§f§"1(§i'€f0¥'€, the-':3? need not be reconsidered.
imave Sri.Pmsad, learned ccmnsei for claimant
" e{tit%_. Smtl-Iaritai Shivananda, ieamed ctmmsel for the
T§nsm'anv::t=: company.
4. As per medicai remrds and evidemce, claimant
had suffered fiactzrre of shaft. of lerft humerus.
€\~-* "Q, '
; 1
I' E
\,_ ix" _.. . .\
3
5. The tribunal has awarded
"Rs. 1,36-,OO(}/~ under following heads:
(i) Pain and suffering A f¥€V'Vv:é'._.'2V:i"'1_,--'1'i'3.1')(;)'--VA V
(ii) 'Medical and incidental u ya}? e§i§V;_t1i(5{§i.:
(iii) Less of earnings dI1fingiaid 1i::.;iér~i;xij} 1
(iv) Loss of happiness 81; l0s$__iii'»an'zV,Qnit:iés « T. SOQQQ
' ---.__R'?ot:;§l V ~ M : Rs. 1,35,oo0
6. The_.lstéitft3ed fjf-.'-laiifeaiit wmlid submit
that afiidnence iéiaimant suffers from 45%
pemn2i'mj:ri!*.%Vpfnjgziéiéiraliiti'i.§§éabi'lity of the left '£I1')pPI' Iimh and
m4-1,.iW-ni;;ni¢r;V:i'~p§iysiEaa disabiiity of the whole body
fess of teaming Capacity. '1'heref0re, tribunal
.sha1i:§vci compensation towards "lo:~';s of
eéimiiig' capacity and future loss of earnings", which I
..a:fr__3 ¥I{fi'.sI}fiFSlI8('§(':(i to accept for the following reasorlsz
7. As. per the averrnenfs of petition claimant. was
V' '"'working as a share keeper. He has not examined any
wimesfi tit) prove that after the acciderlt he was removed
{\>>- fi";"\'£f""'""
4
from cm medical grounds. 'i'heI'efot:é:,"".ethe
trihlmal has rightly dissaliciwed the c0mf1»ensaEiQt;V:i_uidle11A
the head Mass of earning capacity "
earnings". However, having r'egatd f¥.(i'.eTt:fée' of
injuries and treatment it wm1_id .appmp:fii§'i;e,:txi afigrérd ,
compensation of Rs. l8,€){)O/R-7 off-arnings
during period of "*!."f'ze"~fi'a{rt31I*e of left.
humerus was V--h_V=.open reifiliefiinh and internal
fixatinh;"'[' ff,'I*1e' :f:~§"rIi'il?'>'iz:I:is;zMl efintild have made some
pmvieinu 'fer expenditure". Therefm-e,
compcnsmiou ,0?-f f_?sf§"2"(),(){"}0/-- is awarded towards
' V' "fi1.¥.i'Irfe.mvedical éitpenses". 'T'hus, claimant is entitled
'1.g.ém§;i ..;§mia;:>}e::sation of Rs. 1,68 900 /--.
8. result, I pass the following:
ORDER
V' * The appeal is a:*:eept.ed in part. The impugned is mntiified, cmmpensaftion of Rs.I,36,('}(')(}/--- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. l,68,f}0{)/~ N § with interest at 6% per anrmm from the ~ til': the date of reaiisation. The ' investment shalt be in the impugned award.
The parties thtfir