Skip to content


Shivangouda Basangouda Patil Vs. Kuttayya Danayya Chikkanath and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCompany
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMiscellaneous First Appeal No. 816 of 1980
Judge
ActsCompanies Act
AppellantShivangouda Basangouda Patil
RespondentKuttayya Danayya Chikkanath and ors.
Appellant AdvocateHemalatha Mahishi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateChandangowdar and ;K. Suryanarayana Rao, Advs.
Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 9: [v.g. sabhahit, j] jurisdiction of civil courts suit for declaration held, entry made by the revenue authorities is always subject to the declaration that may be granted by the civil court. .....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.....
Judgment:

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //