LAWS(KAR)-2011-7-20

H R PRAKASH Vs. V PRASAD

Decided On July 20, 2011
H. R. PRAKASH Appellant
V/S
PRASAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the claimant seeking for enhancement of the compensation in respect of the personal injuries which he has sustained in a motor accident that took place on 26.4.2005 at about 8 p.m. near ring road connecting to Mysore Heggadadevanakote involving the Tata Sumo bearing No. KA-11 8080 driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent at the relevant point of time.

(2.) IT is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was aged about 43 years, a cloth merchant by occupation earning more than Rs.15,000/- p.m. On the date of accident the claimant along with his co-claimants were proceeding in the Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-11 -8080 to their village Hehbalguppe situated in Heggadadevanakote Taluk in order to attend to a function. When the said Tata Sumo was near the spot of accident, as adverted to above, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver it went to the offside of the read and fell into a ditch resulting in the accident. On account of the same, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person which included damage to his liver resulting in bleeding of the same. He took treatment at Sitaranga hospital, Mysore and later at BGS Hospital, Mysore. He was treated by PW15-Dr. C.P. Madhu in the said hospital. His evidence reveals the claimant had sustained rupture of his liver resulting in bleeding which was set right under a surgery. His evidence also further reveals that blood which had been collected in the peritoneal region was also drained out under a surgery. Taking these aspects into consideration the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.1,36,499/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.15,000/-towards loss of income during laid-up period. Thus, in all a sum of Rs. 1,66,499/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the contesting insurer supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.