Karnataka High Court
Vijendra Prasad vs Naseema Begum on 8 June, 2010
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala, Ravi Malimath
IN THE) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT "~
DATED THIS THE 8'" DAY OF JUNE V,"
PRESEN:_1j
THE HONBLE DR. JUSTICE K;B£iAKTHA3rA*1>S,:m§'WD' " ~.
THE HON'BI.,E MEXLEMA
MESCELLANEOUS Flrésjf-'A:>pf;AL OF 2005 [MW
BETWEEN:
_ _BANGA_LOR1~: 9560.021.
'
{S/O 'DvE+f;x.(AS.*~3GA.YAM,
"47 ?{EARSG'j'OcO:"1\£1I;-,--. ' -
R/O'--NO.'?_/ 1 MARUTHI EXTENSEON.
1S'f"--MAS1N'ROAD,V SRIRAMPURA.
E S]%<lA:SI,JfRES}{ M 1'..A'1'UR. A]')VOCA'E'E]
.Af5?,D:
SMT."f\'ASEEMA BEG UM,
" W;' O P.F.ATHAULLA KHAN,
ER/O NO.-4/5, 7?" CROSS,
" WILSON GARDEN,
BANGALORE -- 560 027.
TH E D IVISIONAL EVEANAG ER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
DIVYSIONAI, OFFICE. NO/L, N016,
2"" FLOOR, NEAR SHIVANANDA CIRCLE,
...APPELLANT
__2..
KUMARA KRU PA ROAD,
BANGALORE -- 560 001. H
{BY SRI: A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE EQR Rgf "
SR1: VSANJAY KRISHNA. ADVOCATE ,
THIS MFA IS FILED U /s 1";::3(1)_:OE MV'1A'cT"Ao_A1VNEsT
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:"28.1'.-O5.1?ASE':_ED"I~1\?
MVC NO3726/03 ON THE ELLE OF XVI A71)DL.'JU';DGE,"w _
MEMBER. MACT, COURT OFSTVEALL CAUSES», BAl\:"*G~ALORE'V
{SCCH~14}. PARTLY ALLOWING.._THE CL'AIl\/IOPZETITHON FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEAEKING'"-.__ENI~IANvCAEI\/{ENT OE
COMPENSATION WITH 'I*1\I'1'EE'{ESv'{"-A._f_I2.'?/o RA.
'~A$*%% *_T
THIS MEA CON-1'1'N"C3oNTEORVREARINO THIS DAY.
DR. K.B}LAK':1+IAVA.TsALA R -...§ELIVERED THE
~
'V/C:1aima11t--1'njured in MVC NO.
the file of the Court of Small Causes &
City, is before this Court under
SeCti01:1:.1v';f"3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for
*e1e11fTariVCement of compensation by modifying the
"'V1Vvz'i1pi;.gned Judgmel-11: & award dated 28.01.2005 passed
u 'in the above said ease.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for M
submits that the claimant has sustained.y';grieVons"= V
injuries namely dislocation of left
fracture of right tibia and withldispiféiee.n3enVt..§ T
Claimant was initially treat.e'd"-.in=.Mailya«l_Hosfbital and
thereafter, he was V 'shlftedy llV'i§:;tio1'i,a Hospital and
treated as inpatient il«om:;s.o5;.2oo3 ..{csio5.0e.2003 and
during--th.at" two operations to both
the legs "internal fixators are fixed. She
further svilbyniitsltl1a$;lin.l~~llspite of treatment taken by the
cla'1f5.1a1nt, he has......got. permaneilt disablement to the
V -?¢'£4'O:lFl/b--~.of the whole body but the Tribunal has
izompensatlon towards relevant heads. it is
Stlbfliillffd that the Compensation awarded by the
" '_lf1*ib't_inal towards each head is on the lower side.
3. Sri .A. N . Krishnaswamy, leamied' " 'v.',j'{3..o1L:nsel
appearing for the respondent No.2--Ins'1;1'r"a--n'ce'"Companyto
submits that there is no pern1an:e'11t disableir1&en'tt--.iriT.the instant case and the of "is d not proved. Therefore, ~ Tribunhal ' -- .hasE awarded reasonable compen's--ation- no good ground for enhancernent of ~ it it t _ _ "'u_Vl/'e'1'1E:1__a_Ve--_pe.riise'd-th'e records of the Tribunal. It the of the claimant that he was 45 old \VOl'li{iI}-fiiis a Securit Guard for Deteetwell 81 ' ;'SeIVices, Bangalore and earning Rs.5,0O0/-- .' It is further stated that the claimant has sust~ain;.ed fracture of both bones of right leg and Vf1:~dgfi;_ture of compound dislocation of right ankle and ' 'f1*e1cture of right tibia and right fibula and laeerated wound over left ankle _ioint. It is further stated that he has spent. Rs.20.000/~ towards medical expenses but the claimant has produced medical all amounting to Rs.3,697/-- and the '1'ribun:a'l__:'h;1sV.:noi:
the salary of the claimant. Forihe'rea«sonsVsiated'Vin {he impugned judgment, the Tribunal "aWAarde£1» compensation in favour of "'chV"e:iclaim'an_t' unden-
1. Pain and sufferifin.Ag00'.""; 5000000 2 .. Rs. 15, 000-00 : t1featInj1eVni.Va11d"rest. _'
3. Medical. Rs. 10,ooom0o earning Rs. 15000300 of amenities Rs. 5,000»00 0' :T1,;_a.n0s'p'ortation, Rs. 5,000--00 _neur'iishmei1t 8: diet Total Rs. 1,00,000*00
6. PW»2 Dr.Ramesh Krishna has deposed that he examined and treatfed the claimant on 06.05.2003 £/\._._.., ft and he has noticed that there was fracture dislocation left. anklejoibnt aIiti"o'bi1iq1ieffrac-ttireié right tibia and fibula with displac§elnent._ Hg deposed that the c1aiman_t"-was and 28.05.2003 with external fixation and fin"/ViV.Vt_iv?:'1.fv:interlocking nailing was done. the claimant has atfll/ictoria Hospital and he 10.03.2004 and noticed the n xi.) 'gwasting & weakness of muscles of both 0' flofwer limbs;
Tenderness & deformity of right leg with joint line tenderness of left ankle;
iv) Scar measuring 6 inches over right leg with operated scar;
L/, V) Terminal restriction of jo_1'.nt__jn1ov.ements-«off right knee by iast.§96 'degre.es-: _anklei.___ dorsiflextion by last d'egrees«. a.d'd..Vi:t'o~tal restriction ofrnoyemeivtts of left 'a_:r'1k1.e;"jand V Vi) Shortening of 1Vi4;5.':o1nVs..of leg (compared to opposite lirriblfi L M V
7. éfurtherl' that the claimant has ;of"bot§hV'bones of right leg with seeaonda_ry'vj'osteo;arthri_tis of both ankles 8: right knee joints' and disability to the extent of _w1't.h '-zbejferenee to left lower limb and 48% with right lower limb and 43% of the whole body _ as a Security Guard he cannot work _a"n.d knanual work. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in he the orosssexarnination of the PW--2 by the Counsel for Insurance Company. In the light of the evidence of PW52 who is Master of Su1'gery in Orthopedic, we are of the opinion th.:-it the Tribttiiell erred in not awarding L/ expenses. No doubt, PW--2 has depose:d~--.fthdt".j'die Claimant has suffered permanent disah1,et1a.ent:"t4o the extent of 43% of the whole would meet the ends of-..justiee__.'" if the};§4erm}:1ne;1t"e, disabiement of the e1ain1ar1t_4_d:iVS at"1.5_% offgthe whole body. Since the old as on the date of the a4r_:ei_dent.-."a's & OTHERS Vs. DELHI C.oR?oVRA*d1'1oN & ANOIHER (1-eportede.,j:b"t:td.' multiplier 14 can be app1ie_d";f:()r' of 4j}~45 years. The c1airI1a'nt is entitled for cte_rripe11s~é1tio11 as UI1d(3'1'Z-
"1 and sufferi11g Rs. 5O,00O~00 '' _ and future medical Rs. 25,000-00 expenses ' A. Loss of earning during the Rs. 17,50o~0o period of treatment and rest I{e.i%,50(3 x {:3 1'1'1().hth.ss
4. V Loss of ii11'.1,2re e21.1"nin;;" 88,200~0O Rs..'3,5()O 3?. X Mi» X W13...
15/100
5. Loss of amenities Rs.
6. Special diet, conveyance Rs. ' incidental charges Less: compensation: _ 'Rs.
awarded by the T ri'r;a_i";~al Balance Rsl Thus the claimant. to additional com pelrisatitan o:f'f1:Rs l'-O , ?"'O'O','V~'.'V:
-. ' the appeal is partly allowed h()lCllHgll"--Iu,h3,l. *'a1e:1l5pel1a1'1i./elairnant is entitled to etd§1ii:io*i1aI oo1np_ensation of Rs.1,l0,700/~ along with ' ;vlC:'().sts._vand,Vl""in_terest at 6% pa from the date of the "l5et,ition--.l-l'ljtilAl;=fealisation. Accordingly, the impugned JL1(1.gfn.ent and award are modified. Respondent No.2- .Vlns.ura11(te Company is <:1irec1"ecl to deposit: the additional ......ll._ compensation amount. along with costs and interest with the Tribunal within two months frrm todayfi ]EDQ€gC=%% Wjgp@Ea% "
ps