IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY OF MARCH, 2010,f_f-..,,f.._V
BEFORE
THE HON'Bi_E MR. JUSTICE A.N.\(E,NU_GOPALA*-§§{)V\:'f)A, A A
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL
BETWEEN:
Smt. Rizwana,
Aged about 36 years,
W/0. Abdul Rahim,
R/a Karim Sab Vatara, _ --.
Halsinmara Doddi, '
Ningamma E5ee,c!«!*:.i,,, ', _, =
Behind
K3n3k3Dura:'ToWn,"""E. , I
Bangalore Ru~vr,ai'»..r}')i$triCt.'--. «. '
""" . ...APPELLANT
(By Sr:.:'T.satee§B':>.fA-Aw.)*-:1'"E--- ' 7
AND:
1. H4.i\l."Rajes}1,'*M_BjBr, V"
,.H_.S.,,_Nara\/avn-a~Shastry,
' «R/a An_na4ya,ppa Layout,
}aragva,na,h~alIi',. 3.P.Nagar Post,
_ TBa%ngaI'¢r,e €:'v5"60 078.
A 2. M15. fF'TTeAA(1'aArOienta| Insurance
Corn,pV'any' Limited,
, R/a Ii'/.3.3.L Building, No.221,
Cualpébonpet, N.R.Square,
A' "Ba.nga|ore.
A Sri. K.T.Srini\/as, Adv. for R1;
...RESPONDENTS
Sri. B.S.Umesh, Adv. for R2)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the Judgment and award dated 31.08.2005 passed
in MVC l\io.6837/2004 on the file of the Judge, Coujrté of
Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan’,Ar.e’a,”g.
Bangalore (SCCH No.9), partly allowing the claim p’etit–ion’.._._’,.
for compensation and seeking enhancement.” of;
compensation.
This appeal having been7.,’reS’eri}ed’i,»._l
delivered the foilowing: g _ A
J U D G 3
Appellant met a ‘accident on
19.06.2004 and sustainedV:’i§njul.ri_Ve:§V. treatment.
Subsequently, Section 166 of
Indian Motor’. (for short ‘the Act’)
againstijthme the offending vehicle
claiming Acompensvatitonlot-..i§s.’3,25,000/– with interest and
cosi:s.;’Th.e cllairnlwas contested by both the respondents.
2wfere”«._.framed. Petitioner deposed as PW–1.
ADb.R’.’S,l;Iat§’l’iikaiiiivhl, deposed as PW–2. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P–14
_ wereii.ma..rl<e-dd} For the respondents, RW–1 deposed and the
:,ir'asurance"policy was marked as Ex.R–1. Appreciating the
.._ev_Vildence on record, the Tribunal held that, petitioner
it -sustained injuries in the road traffic accident in question
and that, she is entitied to compensation of Rs.86,4.00/~
with interest. The claim petition was ailowed
Dissatisfied with the award, she has preferred .
2. The accident, the finding
negiigence, sustaining of injuries asta of.t_he”.acci~:?i’enAt7«i
by the appeilant and the insurantce coverage are ‘n__o’t~un'”cfer
chaflenge.
3. Heard learned “co’unséi ‘si,<:Ees. Perused
the record. Theoniy point i'o'r,co:ri's'i'derati=«9n is:
—- the-r:e–is jus:’.’~aw§ard?
‘AppeiiVVant~,de._r._:fo-set! as PW-1. Ex.P-6 is the
wouncf._Vcertiifica_te-T-She’sustained lacerated wound over
‘xi’«–fore’h._e:ad_,..co.otusion'”ov’er both eyes and haemothorosis of
V”‘tt_h’e_T_|eftiigiezneéig,2:’ghe was an inpatient in the hospital for
ab’ou_t7 °pw~2, Dr.R.Shashii<anth has deposed that,
Vi'~..«.._""when hefexamined the patient on 19.06.2004, he found
piaced iacerated wound on the forehead
V,..,jj1irieasuring 15 cm x 3 cm bone deep, both fles contused
-//”
6″
and haemothorasis of the left knee. She was referred to
Nimhans Hospital for further treatment. Ex.P–8_,v».i.s”~..t_iie
report issued by Nimhans Hospital. Ex.Pf_9§V.:A.l’a’re.’jjthe…._T’.
prescriptions. Ex.P~1O is the __inpa_tien_t'”‘recordsf.,of.._i
Siddalingappa Memorial Hospital v’a,nd;’_”th:’e
Ex.P–12 is the case sheet”of…._Siddia.Iingapp,aA»..i{§1e.:3jo.rial%
Hospital. Ex.P–1O shows t_nla’t..,rn.,o appé,iiani;¥ spent
Rs.}.3,.”166/– towards mediéjal,exparisésgg
5. APP§!_lan_t Beedi roller.
According to«-h’er_, ‘v’-1.as:l’e.arn’in:gv RVs..’.lm’3€)/n per day and
atleast ~
6. shows that, when he
examined the,_:Vpatient’.0’n” 05.07.2005, he found PW–1
i1eac:i.;A,.’che’Von””a’nd off, having difficulty in working
°a_nVd,._noit,::a»I0’leéyto ‘concentrate. On his clinical examination,
he folzllnd ,o.|di’:fs;ultured scar present over the forehead, which
‘shows perinanent disfigurement: of the face.
7. Considering the fact that appellant was a Beedi
roller and was also attending to her domestic work,____her
income can be taken at Rs.4000/– per month. Keepii–ng.:i’n_’
view the evidence of PW–1 8; PW~2, the
disability could be assessed at 10%.. “F here lloss.-Vfiof’.fu.t’ure’t-_ K’
income at Rs.-400/~ per month,;”zin?..A_’as’:
accidental injuries have reduce-_d thevfutu.re’:._;”ea~ri1:ing
capacity of the appellant. The–a.p’Lp.e”l”l-atynt yva’s~ag.e’d about
39 years as on the datlebof hence the
8.” “”” eyiiie-n¢’e.¢oif Pwj-ms; PW~2 shows that, the
appe|lantha_s knee, cannot fold her leg at
the knee joint and}_she_:is-“having difficulty and discomfort
“‘«..whii’e’7wa.li<in._g. Thev*–i–n§'uries have caused loss of amenities
"be suitably compensated. MACT has not
corre'ctlyV_as"sessed the loss. In the circumstances, the just
i°<.,"i.,compensa.tion which the appellant is entitled to, is as
"«.i'_o.lVloiiir.s:
§/
Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/–
Medical charges & Rs. 20,000/–
Incidental charges
Loss of income during Rs. 12,000/.{m”‘”‘5.’,j’L*~:__j:
laid up period
(Rs.4000/– x 3 months)
Loss of future income
(Rs.400 x 12 X 15) A __ _ _ .
Loss of amenities Rs;._ ‘i5,V0CrC3/’-I_:
In the result, aifppealff’ part. In
modification of VVWEACT, it is held
that, appellant…’ _ to ::..:th.e compensation of
Rs. 1 , 39.,GiC0,/if i ;86–,v4G’£)/ ~ . ” The com pensatio n
amou the rate of 6% per annum
from the date ofVVfiii_ng._vof.:.t’he petition in the MACT till the
.–‘v.A’vdate:’§’«of2__Tdeposit.””«.._T.he compensation amount shall be
second respondent insurance company in
the .iVivACVT’\i~§?”ijt;hVieiiVa period of two months from today.
sax»
rupee
<l*mm