Karnataka High Court
Vinod Kumar vs Dalbir Sing on 18 March, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 18th Vk
BEFORE: %
'1';-11: HON'BLE MR§J:}sT:cfi:
MFA..bio.3489;2;Q0'5
Vinod Kumazf, 36 ycgars,' -
3/0 Sri
R/a No. 14/1,' _ V '
Street, Righin:;}}:1d'F0«Wii;' «.
Bangaiore-$125. '*2; .. APPELLANT
(By M/s Laur;zers41~;:e~:k%by $:~:-1 Rchandrashekarj
Sri S.J..7£{'rish11oji'=R'a;j"'8s_ Sri Girish, Advs.)
Dziibit' Sing, Major,
' ' » Fa1:11cr's {name not known,
/éi=La;:i}1i-v'Road, Shanthmagar,
""Bangaim:?e--56O 025.
2.44"'i'..l'1:é.:_(}.V1"'1¢=:3.'1t.'::1 Insurance Co. Ltd,
Reenal Oflice, Legal C61},
* 'Residency Road, M.G.Road Cross,
-Bangalorr:--56O 025,
Rep. by its Regonal Manager. .. RESPONDENTS
(Notice to R1 is dispensed with wide order dated 3»6~O5) (By Sri A.M.Ve-nkssztesh, Adv. for R2) This MFA is filed u/S.173 (1) of MV_.Aet the judgment and award dated 10. 1.2005 in MVC No.1534~/99 on the file ofthe X'v"Add1.""Judge, "
Member, MACT, Court of S1t1a11"{'4_a£.1$6:3, Vimayohali'. Unit, Bangalare (SCCH No.19), ;p:.=':rtlyt»._al1evzii;gt~-..ti1e:
claim petition for compensatian a1:;:iA' " seeiciiag enhancement of compeneiatign. This MFA coming fog; the Court delivered th§\_£¢;I10V9f:iI1g§::t»t., _4 % ' This the judgment and ttjétttxééges;ttpassed by the MACT, Batiga1c»z'e;tfi / 1999. judgment and award, the hti$"~'gt:-gnted compensation of Rs.32,000/-- ' at 8% per annum fiom the date of " date of reaiisation.
2 .. Aggrieved by that, the appellant has filed * this appeal, seeking enhancement.
4. In brief, the facts; are; that on 02.05.1999, at about 11.00 p.m., the appellant was travelling in a L/.
Marathi car bearing Indiranagar Efiirig Road, the car ».was speed and it dashed A result of that, the sjThe appellant ciaimedv L. _ fiof i2s;3,eb,ooo/ --. The Tribunal fgbgggpensafien of Rs.32,000/_-- from the date of reaiisation. Aggrieved by 1;b.at;' this appeal, seeking enhaf:Céme11t.V 'Z V - i
5.. Vieained counsel for the appellant 'V the compensation awarded by the pain and sufferings is inadequate. siibmitted the appellant has spent a sum of ,, "Rs,_2G,O0O/- towards medical expenses and/xpmduceé V iepieaicai bills to the am of Rs.15,092/~ and in spite 'V Mief that, the Txibunai has awarded only a sum of Rs.16,{)OO/~ towards medical expenses, which is L/ totally inadequate. He also submitted Tribunal has not awarded any compensaédgin, loss of income during the periiciiféyf tf¥.3afi':fi.eht_, needs to be awarded. Ifie, tlierefofe, impugned judgment and needsitee 356
6. There on behalf of the respondents,:" V V . z ' 7} " --if'I_V considered the subfiiuiesiohs the {earned counsel fer the appexlafit. .
.. The point that arises for my consideration H " A i'e,' the Tribllnal has awarded just and reasenable compensation?
9. It is relevant to note, the Tribunal has awarded 3. sum of Rs.15,0{)O/- towards pain and sufferings. The appellant has suffered fracture csf left humerus and has taken treatment: as inpatient fer a V. period of three days. The deetor has ziiitiflheen examined. Therefore, in my eonsidezxed' viefwe compensation awarded by the'A'I'IibL_n51éa1 pair; and sufferings is reasonable ai1d:tI;erefe1'e,'it dees'n'o*;_VV Cali for interference.
10. The, eeV;t;per;sat;idi1Vs[v':e :éwa1'dCd by the Tribunal 'dis not proper.
The to the tune of deposed that he has spent a sum " towards medical expenses. fE:'rii)1_1na} has awarded only a sum of ' Rs.»1€3,GQC3,*'__-_- towards medical exmrzses, conveyance, " food and attendant charges which is iaadeqeate and needs '(:0 be enhanced. Accordingly, a of Rs.2{),0O{)/- is awarded towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.2,{3{}(}/~ is awarded towards conveyance and other incidental expenses. L/es 1 1. The Tribunal has not '1.an.y compensation towards loss of period of treamlent. The: " 'V . 4:
treament as inpaiicnta' fox; ' "
There is no evidencé that tile appenam has iherefore, in my considered rightly rejected the CI_£fifil 195$ c4_SfA.i1 1t'€;'131t3 during the period of it does not call for "
compensation payable comes to V' 38,006'/'+"'aI1d the break--up is as follows:--- T. pair; and sufibrings .. Rs. 16,000/-- 'A (b) medical expenses .. Rs.20,000/--
"{<:) 31'owa:"ds conveyance and incidental charges .. Rs. 2,0{)O/ - TOTAL Rs.38,000/-~ L/A M!
13. Accordingly, the appeal Athgf:
impugned judment " z Tribunal, in Mvc.No.2534V/1999"stgmds %% granfing compensatipofiii' "'it1é;tead r;'>f Rs.32,00{}/-, Witt} iI1tei'e;.;f_:;1.t"'8.F3f£a from the date of petition The sacond respondm/it wimm eight weeitsw entire amount shaii be rexea.-ma in' thé" '£§.'pf>eflant. A _ Draw 2ipVA'n'1Vt§}:1svard, accordingly. sdl * 'JUDGE " ' 8&5.