Karnataka High Court
M Krishna Murthy vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 19 November, 2010
Bench: N.K.Patil, H.S.Kempanna
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
i:):'\'§'i€IfJ T}-{IS '§'HEr3 197"" {DAY OF £\1€)V§?ZMT}3£?.lR, 20 E U,
: PRESENT :
THE HONPBLE MR. JUs'r1cE~N.K. PAT_IL:--. *'
AND _
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE 'H.s;'K1§MF;aN~N}a
M.F.A.N("). 5127"£)14*--..,:2L)o5'm\/:. _ A BCIVK-"(;'C'1"12 MEE§1'ish:1a NILiI'1,h_\_-', Aged 45 _y'c*a1rs_, S/0. Muniswe1mz:1ppa, .
No.37'7,A.K.C<.)lc_m}<,_ I ~ 111 Cross, E)<)c1c§e}.1j-_B2::1§iEi.s.a-lwéidilPost, ' 8angz,z1lor<';=v43;" V " "
(By S1-i. Gi'1:im:'{:1li2.1§1, z[\'.'{iV>€)'c'.f;-1:{'C.}' And:
Ne-:if?I11:(1iz'1 £_\ssu1'ii21¢:.«;:--«(;f(.)., LLCL, " Sn. §3.C.S(_:(.?il1a'1:"z.1m:-;.z R:-<3, /'\(i\f(_)c'.2,11.(." for R Z; ,'S1*i. ('}_IZ)c_>ve.-111:1}, for M ii ' NM 1 /'''2A, 1: "El(')c)r, ' N E t._'y:€.1 1'1';;s__11c.12;;1' ;2{;11"e1 , N i=.}.:§,':/'1"lA'1d.£.'1:'i-','.v£','lVl}i,;.?\{|.:fSC.)T(? R<.)a(i, l:3a:11'1gz1l{2re5{3<:J,1'By 11 S M 2-,1.z"1a:1g(r1".
R.S1'i:ji\?21sa Bzigail, M'a1jo1", "
Nc'{)L.'2.8§., 1.2"' Main, " ._I:3S_I§_--1 smgc, IE ;;31m«;_._ f3a:'11'1gzz---:l<)1*<= - 500 ()5 0.
. «sq Rcsp{)1'2ci<>:'1.1s '3./\.<;sc')<ti;:.a£'c=s; for R2} f\pp€.'li€1l'1[.
'.'x'&¥::5:*P.'9.'-»'\-
This Fv§§4'A is filcrd LES £7311) of MV Ava e:g_'_{2.1ms~*.{. the \§udg::r1:1c1'";t and Awasyci <£;«1.iv(hi: 0701._,.f 2005 }3a:~;scd in I'./i\I'Cf~~-M2. 377§_;',20C)i2 on {'hc fiic of the 14%"? A0351}. 'IL.1dg:c_, i\/1AC.T,W(E<J_Lirj1 of Smafl CERLISWS, I§3a:s11ga§<'>I'C {SC',CI*I--1C)}, parmlkx--' a.1l()\\-"i1'1§:._ij'1*3jéV,' (tie-1im pcrtiti.m1 for nomyacrnsamm 2-md .<;(rc§<i11§z, or";112-1n;ti'(:ém.¢n:_ c;>i_7__ cram@0113;-.1ti{")11.
This i\/IPA c(m'1i11g;; on for.-V""§hh§a>e-1:'i1ég, 1fi2i:.»- V'<i.;_-if".-=',7 N.K. PATIL. J., delivers-rd Lht.' i'<)li<">\x.='i:ig:
This appeai by the c1aim'é:'xVVf;_0"vis the impugned judgment 2005, passed in Additionai Judge, Motogj Court of Smafi (for short, 'Tr1'bLmai' ) for e11har1cemé'11_thho.f ¢'0m'pe'1i1§';1tion on the ground that, the
--vV.'compé':11s2ition o'f"~?8__3__&,¢0O0/M awarded in his favour as 0"._:aga0i'11..st for 304.00 iakhs, is inadeqL1at'e. f'--«.jfV_'1'1%::v'vappeilanz daims to be aged about 42 V _ _\-'ea.r0s; \x:_;§fi<.%uig as Assé$':a1'1{ Artist at 21119 Office of the v0,t0)ihA\4'?fhS.§()1}Vé?I'§.COI1?;I"()U€I', KSRTC, getting saiarjv of ?'7,500/-- ;:_3"é3.:7'1':"1'('>11t'i1. He was hale a1'1<.§. he2--1§th}" préox' 20 the giaie of / f W:
z'~""/0 '.3 acrcidemi. Tiuat at about 22:05 P.M., on '24~O?'--200'2, when the appeflami \.x'as c1"c)ss1'ng {he Mysore Roam, V13*_(4'?>dI_V"
Sarvaruchi Hotel, Bmigg-11o1"e, at {hat zime, the motor cycle bearing No.KA~O2»/S4}§3"f'"'s{i'joi9e. said vehicle wizh high speed, in lrigishc' a'n_c1'~1iegI'é§;§ee.n't:1Ve_' manner and dashed against' _L1'1~e appellant T'§1_nd§.'vc:<.11L:a3ed injuries all over his body, \riz.se§r:1_e11Lva1 fr'a'ctL1re of bozh bones of right leg _ left patella.
Immediately, he4_:wa_s shiVffedV.V::o."S.gt;{»n3'a}; Cféiiudhi Hospital, Bangalore for' treeir.m'e1it..:_
3. '>_1t"i's '¥;h_e' éppelléanz that on account of the ir1j'ur'i«es*3ue_ta'i11ed~7in the accident, he was inw the Hos--pit«a1, for a period of 22 days and 5'u11'c1e'1'\ye~n_totwosurgeries and he has spem. consideretlble arnoont _t.t)»¥;r;»;rds c<)nve}.-'alice, 1"1ourishir1g food and 'Vat{endat1_%':.ch21rges inciudirlg medical expenses and other "--1'nei_de'Am:a1 expenses and therefore, he has an be VM c<)§npensaLed re21s<J1'1a131}';
Z
4. On aceotmt of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant. filed the claim petition under Sectioii 166 of the Motor \/'el*;1icles Act, bel'ore_i"t.1iie_ 'l'ribu_naI, seeking compensation of a sum lakhs against the respoiiderits. said _;*.lai"r'ii='.pe'{itio.ii had come up for c:o1is1'd.eratiori be:forL?§°t~l'ie1Tri'b_§..ina1~erif'3i.i 7':-*1 Jaiiuary 2005. The TribLi.r_ia.1, afterconsi.deri'r'lg..t'he relevant material available on fi.1.e_ja.nd«...after"appreeiatiori of the oral and doeumeriltary e*.,-_'_i'd.e%;ice,a.V:la1lor;tfed the claim petition in part,4_:a\.{vard'ih"ga:: s:u«rrs-.V.ofl~?EV§3l,OOO/W with interest:'atm6"?/£5.lper frorriiltllie date of petition till the dateWof= dissatisfied with the q'uaritigm of e'onfilpe.i1"sat'§o1:il'awarded the 'l'ribLiria1, the appe"1elaiit--."e'.is"p_in aifiideal before this Court, seemng enli:;ineerf1e_ii"t V(}'f._C.{)Ifip€I'1SatI'.OU. A j 5. -E-\7e have heard learned eourisel for appellant, _aiid'=.l.earned cottiisel for li'isi1ra.1ice C()I"fl}")aI'1}' for 'Ve.o.irrsiderab1e length of tirrie.
/
6. After hearing learned counsei for the parties and after perusai of the judgment and award passed Tribunai including the originai records placed before"ti_s;.v we are of the View that, the occurrence of ~ the resukant injuries sustained by ..appe11arit' dispute. it is aiso not in dispute that hje~v'vas.a'ge:ci aflio-z;.t'?i.A 42 years and working as Assis__t'a-tjt Artist in t1fiveA'if,)f§ice--';of the Divisional Controiier, KSRf~C,"V..gettin'g--__saA1ar\ of 7 ./ ?7,5OO/ - per month. The treatment for about 22 inidtfie V-agdwctddduring this period, Ifie%{#;%ot1.I:(;i. hai{e'1iftd:er gonevlot of unsaid pain and agony arid «mu--st* "spent considerable amount towards corzifcyance, ttaodiidrishirig food and attendant 'charges: :,apa'rt fromvvdrhedicai expenses. The Doctor has assdessedv:"dis:abi_}vit.y at 55% in respect of a particular limb respect of whole body. The appeliartt, it aged' about 42 years, at the time of accident, has i :to1dps11d.".--'on the life with this disability for the rest of his
-Eife.t§ar1d he cannot do the work as he was doing before.
" '' Havirtzg regard to the §"1a.t§}.."I"€ of injuries sustained in the %;M / ('1 accident, we presume that he wotild have taken folio"-'-- up treatment and bed rest at least for a period of three months. Aeecirdiiigly, t'z1king into consideration a11___the above aspects, we re«--d.etermine e0mpe1isati£if'i--._'f--i3§'*_ awarding a sum of $50,000/~ towards ' sufferings as against 345,000/~::""3-20,800/¥"t*t(g\x3ar.d.s conveyance, nourishing food and 'éittendanti"e_ha1fges.;a~sv2i* against ?12_,O0O/ --; ?1 7, I 00/ loss during treatment periegi, taki11--g;'--tH-e_ ineeiriiei-iof the appellant at ?5,700/-- per _e.incinti}'1;' of three months;?40;O.t}O/:§_ite\§ia.r_tis disability and a sum of ?}O,OOO/9Vtoiwartis'fi1vt{:i*eiA"Ined.ica] expenses as against 35,000/s emiarcied' they Ti-'i.1i3i,ina}. %_'-~.HU-\~§'€\'€t,«"'Et'"stim of ?20,.00O/-- awarded by iTri':'3;;i§:;1V:"=:pv.=9VaA:rd';; loss of amenities, discomfort and tinhappirirsss"isijtist and reasonable. Hence. it does not Call for inteiffereiice.
-1._h_cj-:7(>z.zse. as stated abm"
1n the light of the facts and eir<;:L1msi.amtes of , the. apnea} filed E33' £1[3§)€'.']]£3I'1§ 011 such deposit. by the i3.'1SL1I"E1'flCf;'. Ccvmpazly, th<-3 c1'1té1*e sum shall be releassed in favcmr of the appeilarlt, émmed?;21te1}*.
(lfféce to draw a.wa1"d, z1Cc.o1'ciiI2g1}.'.