Sharath Kumar S/O B.Rathanlal vs Abdul Rehman on 31 January, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sharath Kumar S/O B.Rathanlal vs Abdul Rehman on 31 January, 2012

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, K.Govindarajulu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 315* DAY OF JANUARY 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAT/ATs;ALA-E~:i:  _j"  

AND

THE HOMBLE MR. JUSTICE K. G'o\}IHDARAj-LHL; A'  A'

M.F.A.No.6337'/2607 (Mv)~._  A 

BETWEEN:

Sharath Kumar,   
S/o.B.Rathanlal, V_  ; 
Aged about 11 ye~ars;f"  . U '
R/o.G.M.Street,=" " 
Malavalli.

Now r/a.NQ.56_/B, 2'? C_r"0ss;2._  -- .

Petebaadi,'Ma'ndya_City'-.,   " _.

(AppeIIantis'mi'nor,   S

Hence, Rep. by<--.his.fath_er._ ' 

as Naturai-vGuardian."' " " ...APPELLANT

'i(By'Sni't.AsEﬁa.B.L, Ad\A/V." """ 

 A _'fo,r P-rp'f..TK«..S';'*3r_eeka nth Associates, Advs.)

. ANTI '  

 1, AbdTIiRehrf1éTn,

__ '~»S/o.Abdu__|'3~Haroonsab,
f,R'esid_ing near
"--Akr_ar'r'r. Bakery,

_  277"' Cross,

Paédarayanapura,

A  ' '"Bangalore-25.



No.4/Insurance Company, appellant hf-als"'no«t. so.4ught:nVfo'r_any?reliefl 7. it

in this appeal. There is no merit in ma'kin:g--._liespo'n.dent«.No:f4--.asa

party to this appeal.
3. Perused the 

4. The Tribunal. has all/VVa'Vld:fV§:ClV co'rb_pe'nsation in favour of the

claimant as under:  ~ '

____ _. M . _ . _ (In 3
i) Pain   - I 42,000-00
ii) Medical e')A<l3..g64'r'.ses"~..éV    1,28,262--0O
iii) Lossof--vamenitiesV""it   5,000-oo
 it  ma: "" "17/_§,"2"é§.'6--c3"

H '- 5*-it    of the claimant that lad aged about 6 years

 sustained zgriyevous injuries in the motor accident that occurred

 He filed a claim petition through his natural

 f'a;the.r"an:d guardian, claiming compensation of ?5,00,000/- from

T --th'e"'owner and insurance Company of the lorry and luna towards

l4"'«,>ipersonal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The

Tribunal has held that the accident occurred solely due to rash

and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and therefore,
l

L



that the claimant has got permanent disablement to 4t.he..._:ex_tent

of 25% to the whole body, is not correct. We have

and the fracture is not that hopeless. ln  

fracture was treated conservatively.  There jis'-_no._s'horte.nin.gof '

leg. However, it would meet the_ends".of"-justice'if::reas}pn.abl_e,

compensation is awarded  _loss'~..of--V'am'enities as
compensation of ?5,000/~ 'awvard_eVdﬂ_to'wards_lossof amenities is
on the lower side. The Tribunal   compensation
towards conveya.nceV,VL:Vj'-attendiant,  and incidental
expenses. in  Viislerititled for compensation
as under:  """    M l i it I
V (In 1')

i) Pain and sulV'V'r"e._rVMiri»g    '  40,000-00

_.Ei._) «'Medica.l Ve__>ii<penses"*'  ..... .. . 1,28,262--O0

iii.) Att'e--nda.nt;.pconveyance,

sp'e.ci'a,l_a.diet.fa--n.d inci_(.:'ental expenses 20,000-O0

'  xiv) Loss__:of amenities 50,000-00

Total 2,38,262-O0

  4LEt§S:.:Coinpensation awarded
 bythe Tribunal 1,75,262--OO

Balance 63,000--OO

 



7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, holdi_ng that

the appellant/claimant is entitled for additional compens'a.tio.n of

?63,000/- along with costs and interest at the  

from the date of petition till realizationtm Appeal"*iv--s.@f}.isrnissed,,_

against Respondents 3 and 4.

Out of the additional con1.pae~nnsatioi1.__a'mnou:nt;,"'a"'sVum of ?50,000/- shall be kept in fixed deoos,itv~fo'i=..a perio'dv-.of.t§hree years from today, during which guardian of the appellant/claimantnnits V_entitie'dt'o interest that accrues on Judgment and Award are n>.od'E'f1i«;ed. 3 l' A Respondent Company is directed to deposit the additional?.co'mpe__nsa~tio.riV amount along with costs and V.~i'nteres,t'§vitEhAV'th,e Tri5'u«n.a.l..within three months from today. Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE ~bhv*

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Sharath Kumar S/O B.Rathanlal vs Abdul Rehman on 31 January, 2012

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, K.Govindarajulu