N S Kaimals/O Late Sridhar Kaimal vs E Palani on 23 June, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

N S Kaimals/O Late Sridhar Kaimal vs E Palani on 23 June, 2008

Bench: Manjula Chellur

M.F.A. NO5223/2003
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT 01%' KARNATAKA AT  H

DATED THIS THE 23% my OF' JU,I'?I§?t)z?3~'{    T ' L

PRESENT'

THE HOIWBLE MRS.JUS'fICE  k  %

AND &
THE HONBLE Mr~z; ¢JiUs*i'1¢E:%iA,$'g;>AcHHA§URE
M.F.A. NQ,s2g31k2t)o%3i%%tr;§:v1kL

BETWEEN       

NSKAIMAL  if ' 

S/O LATE;SRIDHARK.A!_M&L   _

AGED ABO'U'I'i.30'1'EARSf' ' _  ' __

R/AT NO. 54311", A ASH'WA'f'--HI "  " - "

NEAR vENKA*m":tsH*5:AR:s, '1*:.~:MPLE_:~ w
KODIHALLI  '    

BANGAr;0RE.-- 560 C03  A?PELIANT

 ' gay s"x~1AV<':': L§"UKU"bdARaN,Ai3W.?. FOR MjS.B E KOTIAN ASSTS, fiDVS.)

AND 

1  PAL-Azsa 
s,zo;'qERusA?Pa GOUNDER
R/0.319. 1/31 BAJANAI KOIL STREET
.. , * KARUGAMBATHUR
» VQELLORE
*.,_'1_fAM}L man
{PLACED EX--«PAR"£'E}

VT   E3N§'I'EDIN£)LAINSURANCE co LTD

DIVISION OFFICE

4651, TKM COMPLEX

EST FLOOR KATPADI ROAD

VELLORE - 6532 004  RESPONDENIS

{R-I SERVED, SRE.M.ARU;N PONNAPPA, ADV. FOR R-2)



M.F.A. 930.5223/2003

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) -015 NW ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED: 31.5.2003 PASSED IN we NO. 4oo1;2oooVT'o'E THE
FILE 0;? THE VII ADDL. JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT--3, COURT-' _ivE_ fSM;A1_,L

CAUSES, BANGALORE, (scans), PARTLY ALLow:Ne;""TH..E;_~.._e:A.:_;v;« _
PE'I'I'i'1()N FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHA.EcEjM.EN'T% -of? " 

COMPENSATION.   __ _ __ V V
THIS M.F.A. COMING on FOR HEARITJE mine':
CHELLUR.J.,DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWINC.¢:®'  "  ' .. ~  
JUDGEAEET %

This appeal is ﬁled by    for
enhancement of   to the motor

accident   injuries.
2.  the appellant is as under:
' . J    appellant was proceeding on his
   bearing No.KA.o3/H5533 from East to
 bearing No.AP 03/T2219 driven in a rash

V .an<;i  f1;eg]1?geI'1t': manner coming from the opposite direction.

 egamst his scooter. As a result, he sustain' ed

 injuries and he was first taken to St.John'S Hospital
 later at Lakeside Hospital, Bangalore. He has spent lot
4 5 of money towards medical, conveyance and nourishment.

On account of his permanent disabiiity in the

7



M.F.A. 310.5223/2003
-3-
motor accident, he has sustained not only mental

depression, but also ﬁnancial loss. With 

he has filed the c1aim petition.

3. Against this, the responde:;itAA'i\To§'2,/t;§}e

represented and ﬁled the, objeeiion. statement  

respondent contended that the"'t'a:6ci,dent"'1'§ase   rash V

and negligent driving of t»ﬁeé.appe1VIe.nt/ insurer and even have disputed _

4. tilt" is on V.-pleadizlgs, three issues were _VSo es. issue regarding the accidental it is dispute that Koramangala Police V' Iflfo. 306/ 2000 for rash and negligent driving of iorxy. The respondent] inslxrer has not pieced' an§f':.niam1*ia1 before the Tribunal and the respondents are not seriously disputing the said ﬁnding of the regarding the accidental negﬁgexme of the driver of the lorry.

M.F.A. 910.5223/2003 .4"

5. Then coming to the quantum of compensa};io;i,._jwe find that the appellant sustained compound _ foot and ankle with infected ﬂap avu1sior.;»'w fracture of left 1" meta tarsal beige fracture of 23¢', 31*'-' and 5"" meta left. V > open wound, after wound debticiereent, 2 was done and inspite of V _best;_v available, he complains pain i11,t11e left 'to squat, Walk, run, apart%'ftomiiviwas:iij3gjtetithe taﬁsoles and deformity of the left tibia Tami left this, the Doctor has certiﬁed that he has disability of the left lower limb to theﬁiiiole body. Having regard to these 'loss of amenities of life and permanent has awarded Rs.50,000~--00 towards etinjury, and suﬁering and according to us, it is just and compensation. So far as loss of amenities and disability, it has awarded Rs.10,000~0O and the ifsame is also just and reasonable according to us. Then coming to the loss of earning during the treatment period, oﬁ"

and on, we notice that this claimant was admitted to M.F'.A. NO.5223/Q00?) -5- hospital with subsequent problems. He was a a Finance Company and Ex.P.15 is the which shows that the appellant was u " he salary, apart from Rs.1,000~00 as leonvejgarieei Rs.2,400--00 as incentives.

6. We need not take into coriveyaaee charges as he was not E2116' laid up period. Even otherwise, employer' is the appellant. The ver3?:VV_fa<:t 'r.-r_ea.1i3ner1t in private hospital by spending he would not have less t13ai1A.IV§sl5,(lI3O-O0 per month. Accordingly, we entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000--O0 1o4s'sv'..iofle.'ineome during the laid up period as against the Rs. 18,000--0O. Though several bills are to St.John's Hospital and Lakeside we notice that some of the bills include the he jeiadvanee payment and also the ﬁnal bill. There are D' "prescriptions and medical bills as well. Therefore, the observaﬁons of the learneé Juclge that no corresponding M.F'.A. N().5223__/Q1303 ,5- 7 prescriptions are found is not correct. Howeyer';-Jere 1 some amounts paid as advances aiso"«.i11<::111_c_'ie4_1 'tthvte other bills. Therefore, there is no jrre1:iﬁeation:,for the 'sarx1e.'=, On perusal of the medical bﬂ1s,s :teoeghee1::;evr:eareee't'Judge kt says he would not take' irrto eeeeideeeeen eaittthe bills, he wouid not disclose how at. 011 the other hand, the eerjztire disclose about Rs. 1,2o,ooo-ob medicine charges at St. Jo11:ﬁ'$"t' taiieeitie Hospital on three occasionvsﬂ 'Q Rs.1,20,000-00 towards medical the award of Rs.50,00O--O0. ' ; _ as the conveyance and nourishment, only Fawarded and we enhance the same to Rs.15,(ﬁG~0 eQ0.V The learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be assessment towards the loss of income and in the light of the Doctor not saying how E213 earning capacity has hampered his day to day life, with this ciisabikity of 35% to the leﬁ lower limb and in View of the fact that he is still working, we are not inciined to award 4;

M.F.A. NO.5i223__/2003

-7- 7 any amount towards the loss of future incomo. V' is entitked to Rs.92,000-00 as addition to the award ofRs.1,4:3,OG(;/54£)<:)"o.t' 'V

8. Accordingly, {he with costs. The compensa§tio:i'1.Ai$*; -_I:_)y Rs.92,000-O0 payable togetherowifzh ifom the date of petition till ' ooﬁipensation amount shall be eight weeks from the datdof of order.

sal-

]udqe Sd/"' Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court