Sri D K Kantharaj vs Sri H S Mallikarjunaiah on 19 June, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri D K Kantharaj vs Sri H S Mallikarjunaiah on 19 June, 2008

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

nxz THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19"" DAY OF JUNE 2003  

BEFORE:

THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND  "   

     

BESTWEEN :

Sh. D. K. Kanihamj  .
32 Years, Sic) Kambanna '  ~
No. 33, 4*' H Cross

Rukjmininagaf . _. 2 ;
Nagasandra Fzpst; ' . "  %    ' -
Bangaiurc-560"0j73 % '      APPEI..I.,ANT

(By Shri. Ki./1'. 1Gu;i1(1s::V:j/atF'r4$a¢f;}Xdvc.>ca1c)

:  I .  
i   Majoxg S/o Scnzasﬁekmaiah

Yuliyui; C.~..N. 'Halli -Taluk

_ .   : . « , _"i"u,mkur 

'A ' V .»  :   iiidia Insurance

--.Con:pa1iy Limited

A   Rggizmaz ()ﬁice
' ' V --  A u " Shankamnamyana Building



dclivcsgfasd the 1::i:t;t,y~ing:-t

M. G. Road, Bangai(.>re»-25 
By its Regional Manager  

(Shri. c. Shankar Raddy, Advocate for Res[x>ng1t§:I't.t"":F»Va*iig'::.?.VA.

Respondent No.1 -- Served)

=F*$3l=1I¢

This Misccltancous First Apptial  "  

173(1) 91' the Mutur Vehicles  ag2ain'$t tl1c"jta£igemg:rit and]

award dated 13.11.2005 passed in\}v!$iC_.Nu_'I'65§Xi?1(}()4f;an the 131::
:31' the Principal Motor V   and Chief

J udgc, Member, Court   {:,;ju:;§e.~.i,':. Mt:lmpoiilan area) W

Bangalore (sccﬁgi), Wtugtgzzowittg tht:. §.;laim petition ibr

    nfcomptmsatiun etc.
 u for hearing this day, the Court

JUDGMENT

' A tt:i.:ét:C()unscI for the appellant and the respondent. K ' " " . __ A facts are:

_ tt ..;i'hc appellant was the claimant before the Meier Accidents Ciztims Tribunai (htsrtzinaftcr rcfcrrcd to as 'the Tribunal' For V A. brevity). The appellant who claimed to be 2: Civil Engineer by 5 4 '.

38% and he was hospitalised for six days and had treatment for several months thereafter. The has awarded meagre axnuunis under vanbus hzizitis; =.f§7he'V7.I'Iibunai" . has awarded uniy a sum L1l.'Rs.3G,00{)r;¥_ towaréis whereas, he had suﬁered n1ultipte"'£i"zz1ct1tf{-:34 heade' injuzy and therefore, the "iu._t)e§ enhanced substantially. The Ctyunsetlétfe-_:' gm-,;1.1 submit that the Tribunal has tmfvztrds miseeltaneous ex. ndiature iﬁcliidinvt. trims. rt and ex nses while in bus ital pt: 1 _ _ » under irwftmeni. ' téirttoiints are on the lower side and V tI1cret%)te,e..wu:a1I(i to. be enhanced substantially. Though the .appeIian!J'was a Civil Engineer and was earning in excess oi"

teiiitth, the Triburtat has adopted Rs.300{)i-- as the 'V monthly and has pm-needed to compute the compensation A ftaiwairsjs 31353 at income at R.s'.9000;'- and this requires to be substanljatiy.

Thcaugh the Tribunal has atsu appreciated" the medical evidence and has tiatmd that the injuriezs sutfered were vital part»: 6

of the body and that it would certainly interfere in his l1a1jeti.(_ms, whatever may be his pmtessiun and that the other ii*aett:}f'e§{"!1e:4 resulted in distiguratiml (Jr the face ut' the app'-§ltant,i restricted the award tuwards distxlaility antl.lt)ss.§ ot_'.t'i:}'t{ireieainii:~g i capacity at Rs.25,0m/-. The CV1)ur1:telv__iii'>rv_iitheiitpiiellanti thereibre submit that there was ne-»e:f3plieatien_tit7 .rii=ini(iv:iiiiii11aking i this paltly awanl under Insofar as the appeliant was wholly _itl1e_:_~x_'.,*quence ofevents. The axle of the tmckii' i:ztielViiii"i{tlting on to the read is wholly unexpected, circumstance that this was so, could to attribute contributory negligence to the the appellant had been pmceeding at :-1 sedate Litiexpeeted event of an axle telling ell' the vehicle V' iwtiieiz moving ahead would eomptetely take the rider eta two following such 3 vehicle by surprise and it could not be i that there was want of diligence or there was contributory negligence in a case such as this and therefore, there was no 6

5. On a careful consideration of the ree¢)rdi"i-titndftlie contentions, the amount of uompensation iaw.ai1_ied' uriidef heads is certainly on the lower and enhancement, having due regartliiiiaihiitlie l'zui:itai_ and material on record. ' ttiiitarlls pain and suftisring is etitteeafxjged, the...he_ad is towards m.m..

pecuniary the discretion of the Tribunal to await} iéguzns on lassessmeng the same ought to wnliumiito similaf'a}wa1'ds in identical Ifthe nature of the injuries iiazfeiiL'»s,)nii:e_rr4ii:~/ti; amount ought to have been larger.

:ny~l'«opiiiim_1, thei"ap§1e!«lant would be entitled to additional sum towards pain and sulliaring.

lnsc3't'a iWas the claim towards miscellaneous expenditure during " of treatment and eonxialeseenee is concerned; the ilitilbunai has awarded only Rs.3000f-. The same ought to be "iienhaneed by atleast a sum ot'Rs.7000r'- towards transport and 8 relevant multiplier are applied, the appellant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,l8,880/- that is rounded oil' to Rs.2,.l"9,D0Of~ towards loss of future earning capacity on accountA,.ea.Fjgli:$aljiliity'. After deducting a sum of Rs.25,()00:'-, the J entitled toRa.l.,94,000/'- underthis t Insofar as the dedueiion 't;.xii't"w-M9131' V of compensation on the fo1)tingt'iiiitl:at vviais' etmtributory negligence on the part of sustained. The manner in which ':z_<:eidentii':a.s occurred would clearly indicate that there _l'i(.'rv diiiigenee, on the part of the appellant rnennler in i\iri'\I'lr'i'€.'.'.'l"i'itl2(.$ accident has occurred has taken the by surprise, as it would any other person in i plaee; "fheretom, it cannot be said that there was 'eontxibtitoiEy negligence on the part of the appellant. The of 25% of the compensation amount is not warranted. appeal is accordingly allowed in terms as above. The " iappellatst is held entitled to additiorsal compensation of %

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court