Ramachandra Reddy H M vs Reliance General Insurance Company ... on 13 September, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 8]

Karnataka High Court

Ramachandra Reddy H M vs Reliance General Insurance Company ... on 13 September, 2010

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13%! DAY OF SEPTIEMBER 2010- 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE S.N.SA'lY  

M.F.A. No.34o4/2006     " I  

BETWEEN:

RAMACHANDRA REDDY H M  _
S/O LATE MIJNIswA1\«ﬁ(__REDD§r--.-- _  ''
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARs__,X, ' 
S/OVSRINWAS  1. t_  1   
R/AT NO. 13, DEEPAK NEST, _2ND I«'moR  _ 
65H 'C'CROSS, V'ENKATAPUR'IAY(j)UT 1 .. 

 _ I A _ 
  ~     , ...APPELLAN'i'

AND E' "  

I. RELQXNCE (}.ENERAL_iNSURANCE
C0MI5A_N*I*_LII»IITIé:I3 
REP. BY  EVIANAGER,
. $10.38, CENTENAR;Y BUILDING,
" - 1.  WING MG'; ROAD.

A   1.

v~IEf'13yES::I : RAVI s SAMPRATHI, ADV FOR R1, R2--SD}

" 1._M/S«WI1>I9I0' LIMITED
'  A/C..AJI:IfII NAIR. No.88.
"S.E3..TOWERS, M.G.ROA33.
BANGALORE 1.  RESPONDENTS

"WI THIS MFA IS FILED U/ S 173(1) OF MV ACT AG1T'iL\IjST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:l7/ 1 PASSED IN MVC NO.5553/2004 ON THE EILE OE. ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES at-.MEMaB~ER;----.S ~ MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA, SANGA1,ORE.,_"{SCC:E¢_12);u ._ PARTLY ALLOWING THE CI..£'d':'»'{--." P.E'rIf1*:O1x: " FOR, COMPENSAEON AND SEEKING QE j COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING .ON__ FORHE',ARIN(§' . THE COURT DELIVERED THE EOi~.pOw"1NO:' This is claimant's" See'kingi'V_':enhancement of cempensation ;aWaf"o1ed;1in we ju{'_igﬁ1er1t:f and award dated 17.21.2005 peg;-sea:égrmze;-No.5553}2004. On 18.8.2004 at about : Eras walking On the edge Of the road nea::VMad'jva1A'a: ivisaket, he was hit by a car bearing ._V_regi:S{£."a1fiO11__NO.KA+O3./MB--586l. In the Said accident, he left parietal region measuring 7 Cms., in lenhgifi -i to left knee joint (anterior cruciate legainentnigiture with posterier horn medial. meniscal tear of "'..j».tf1eTe1eftv1{nee}. The fact of accident, injury suffered by the

-- the ownership of Offending Car by 2115 respondent "V1 -3- and coverage of said vehicle by policy issued by 13* respondent insurer is not in dispute.

2. In the cozirt below the claimant filed a_ petition seeking compensation for the aforesaid injuries. . _ proceedings he got himself examined as _F'v"v'; it V 'V I examined PWs.2 and 3, Doctors, t Nursing Home, where he was.»in-p__atierit.for abcriit' 6 .d_;iys ; underwent surgery for his injurediVl_eft knee." coiirt below after recording evidence;._4_liearclA for and contesting respondent. pleadings and evidence on record.-h 'awé-_rded""cornpensati.on to the claimant as under:-- -_ ' p A

1) forpain Rs.35,000/--

5 2) towards' medicéil eicpenses Rs.55,000/--

i't3}ci'?0IW¢yance « i Rs. 4,000/- ' * 1. _ V «gloss. salary during iaid r -sppenod Rs.13,030/--

f'5) coinpehsation for disabiiity Rs. 10,000/d €§)"for'ioss of ainenities Rs.10,000/-- AA 7)'vfor future medical expenses Rs. 3,000/- Rs.1,30,030/--

'M'! -4- payable with interest at 6% pa, from the date of petition till date of deposit excluding interest on the amount awarded towards future medical expenses.

The claimant being aggrieved by the of a. compensation awarded by the court below has"p'refe?red"th1s " "

appeal chaiienging the same.

I

3. On careful perusal _iudgtnen:ti'and';§aiso on reappreciation of the evi5dence_"Aon it is seen that the evidence of Doctors, PWs.2_ dis-cioses that there is no pennane11t"tdisahiiity§ s--uﬁ"e'1*ed '-:by__t1:ie ciaimant in the accident." ""Since thef:;*e~ is-one fracture to the knee and blunt injury to the l1ead~§f__below has awarded a sum of Rs.35.000V/"+«--in.aii' and suﬂeﬁng, i.e., Rs.15,000/-- for v_»»t;t:iev_ufractdre"~and,Rs.20,000/-- for the head injury. Towat-dsV_conyeyance charges during treatment period a sum of Viyssawarded. the same does not require to be

-- reconsidered; So far as loss of income during laid up period, it it ' since_ the claimant was inpatient oniy for a period of 6 days .' and' that he has taken treatment at home thereafterwards for it "another 30 days, the court below has rightiy awarded '*1 compensation under the head loss of income during laid up period for two months at Rs.13,030/--, which is proper. The compensation awarded for _ loss of amenities at Rs.i0,000/-» each, proper.

4. The claimant being a he is entitled to reimbursemienet "expenses incurred for his case, the court below has not:t.ak:en_ and awarded a sum of expenses though he is not entitled any that'head unless he establishes" reimbursement is rejected by his emplo}?er_, in the instarit'i'case, there is no evidence to that effecti it Under 'circumstance, the compensation paid to »*he..clai,rxiat1t.'vA:is. on higher side. However, regarding future only a sum of Rs.3.000/~ is granted. in normal 'circumstance, that should have been increased to ._u:Rs.a1_'5,0{3()./~. in the facts and circumstances of the case, i.!since':the claimant has been awarded Rs.55,000/-- towards

-rnedicai expenses, which he is not entitled to, this Court "Wt

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court