High CourtsDivision Bench(1981) 03 KAR CK 0033

Shivangouda Basangouda Patil vs Kuttayya Danayya Chikkanath and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 23 March 1981

HON’BLE JUDGES
M. Nagappa, J · G.N. Sabhahit, J
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 816 of 1980

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 289 words

Sabhahit J.

1.

This appeal by the claimant-injured is directed against the judgment and award dated February 1, 1980, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Dharwar, in M.V.C. No. 196/1978 on its file, awarding compensation of Rs. 11,000 to him.

2.

As a result of the accident that occurred on May 14, 1978, in Hangal, at about 2 p.m., the claimant sustained fracture of the shoulder bone and mandible, in addition to other injuries of a minor nature. After he was treated in the hospital for a month, his mandible was set right by operating on him and fixing a wire to the jaw. Even after the said treatment, the claimant is now left with disfigurement of face and he complains that he cannot chew hard substances as before. It is also found by the Tribunal that the pinna of his left ear is disfigured, being cut off. The Tribunal no doubt was awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000 as general damages, i.e., Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering and another rs. 5,000 disfigurement of the face. For that we deem it just and proper to add another Rs. 5,000. We affirm rs. 1,000 awarded by the tribunal towards special damages. In all, therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 16,000 instead of Rs. 11,000 awarded by the Tribunal.

3.

In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The insurance company shall pay the claimant a compensation of Rs. 16,000 together with interest at six per cent. per annum from the date of application till payment as also costs before the Tribunal. In the view we have taken, the cross-objections filed by the owner of the vehicle are dismissed. No costs in this appeal and cross-objections before this court.