Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
GIRIGOWDA V/S RAHAMATHULLA & ANOTHER, decided on Tuesday, June 20, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Karnataka, M.F.A No. 2743 of 2010. ] 20/06/2017
Judge(s) : B. MANOHAR
Advocate(s) : B.V. Ramamoorthy. R2, M.P. Srikanth.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (4) KCCR 3109"  ==   "2017 AAC 2176"  ==   ""  







    B. Manohar J1. The appellant is the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in judgment and award dated 2-7-2009 made in MVC. No. 198/2007 passed by the Addl. MACT Hiriyur (hereinafter referred to as ' tribunal- ) has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.2. The appellant filed the claim petition contending that on 20-6-2006 while travelling in Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg. No. KA-16/T-4998-99 from Varadakatte village towards Hiriyur Town on NH.-4 a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-37/H-3438 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Tractor-Trailer. Due to that the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately he was admitted to the Government Hospital Hiriyur and later shifted to St. Marthas Hospital Bangalore where he took further treatment as inpatient. He claims that he has spent huge money for the treatment and sought for compensation.3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. defended the case by filing written statement.4. After trial the Tribunal held that due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry the accident occurred. The claimant is entitled for compensation. With regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned the claimant has sustained totally four injuries. One of the injuries is the fracture of left superior and inferior pubic rami. The claimant has submitted the medical bills to an extent of Rs. 5 000/-. The Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of the injuries awarded a sum of Rs. 35 500/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimant has preferred this appeal.5. Sri. B. V. Ramamoorthy learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant has sustained totally four injuries and also sustained the fracture of the left superior and inferior pubic rami. The wound certificate Ex. P. 8 clearly discloses nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. He has taken treatment from 21-6-2006 to 24-6-2006 for a period of three days. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for the fracture of superior and inferior pubic rami fracture left. Since he has taken treatment in the Government Hospital he has submitted the medical bills for Rs. 5 000/-. That itself is not a criteria while awarding the compensation. Hence sought for enhancement of compensation.6. The learned counsel for the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. respondent No. 2 argued in support of the judgment and award and contended that the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation and sought for dismissal of the appeal.7. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award and oral and documents evidence.8. The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned. In the road traffic accident the claimant has sustained the following injuries.a) Laceration wound of 4 x 1 cm over right leg.b) Abrasion of 3 x 2 cms 2 x 1 cm over right hand.c) Laceration wound of 10 x 6 cms over upper lip incissor and tenderness of lower back region.d) Fracture of superior and inferior pubic rami.9. He has taken treatment as inpatient from 21-6-2006 to 24-6-2006. The wound certificate Ex. P. 8 discloses that the claimant has sustained the above injuries. However he has not examined the doctor who assessed the disability. In view of that the Tribunal awarded a meager compensation. Even though the claimant has not examined the doctor who has treated him the wound certificate discloses that he has sustained a fracture and other injuries. Since the claimant has taken treatment in the Government hospital the doctor who has treated the claimant is not available to give evidence. That cannot be a ground to award meager compensation. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards the loss of income during the laid up period and future loss of income.Hence it is appropriate to award global compensation of Rs. 40 000/- in addition to Rs. 35 500/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly I pass the following:ORDERThe appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 2-7-2009 passed in MVC No. 198/2007 by the Additional MACT Hiriyur is modified. The claimant is entitled for global compensation of Rs. 40 000/- in addition to Rs. 35 000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a.