IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA KA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27?" DAY OF JULY 2oD9_g;
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE»N.'K.RAfiI;--'IvD
AND , _
THE HON'BLE MR.JL'i$'T:CE1F![éILLA?'PA~~v--..
M.F.A. :s:o.&1424/2Doc;7E('My) E E
Between : . V
Nataraj B.S. ; V . .,
S/0 Sanganabgtszipgga " '
Age: 66 years.' *
Occ:Nil,a H _ --
(Business at' the timé-~ aC~;,id'e1fif} '
Res: 198, 6??' P1f1ase, E' V'
IndustriaEAfe_z;L _ '_ A. ,
Bangalc-re. " .. Appellant
'E V. Advocate ]
1. H.
Age: Maj01*,'"N0.89,
1-st Stagé. Sm phase,
A aw; Main, West of Chord Road,
" « E " Bafigalore.
L/
_ 2 _
2. The Manager
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
199-, 2nd Main,
Sampige Road
Mallesghwaram, H ;
Bangalore. .. Respondent'-s"'--.g.
[ By Sri M.Arun Ponnappa, Advocate for R-2 )
This MFA is flied under Secti’:)vr17′.A_A1t’7t3{1tt)”-
Vehicles Act against the judgmetntand award dated;’1..’Zf8…2G06–. *
passed in MVC.No.1279/G5 on the of titie Addl.Judge,
Member, MACT—41, Bangalore, partIy’a.Hofi/ing theciaiin petition
for compensation and see1{i1’1g–enlaztuiseffxevtitiofcornpensation.
This ‘–~_co1§nin_g V’ admission this day,
HBILLAPPA, __J–.V,”‘de1:;I\:fered %§h_e1-following : ,
dfJޤGMENT
x1_{xdumi.t.
‘ V. on*mertis.
aptieal is directed against the judgment and
_award~.,.. dated. August 2006, passed by the Motor Accident
” ” 5 rraiunai, Bangalore City, in MVC.No.1279/2005.
L/
_ 3 _
3. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
has granted compensation of Rs.80,000/– with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
Aggrieved by that, the appellant” has fiied ” .
seeking enhancement.
4. In brief the facts are; d on 3″.12.,.V:2O:()4,vVgat about
9.00 am. when the ‘a,p’peHe-iintwazavpioceeding near the
Industrial Bus Stop, a bike came at
speed and dashe”dbajgiains”t.gt1nie a result of that,
the appellant’ The appeliant claimed
compensation” of The Tribunal has awarded
compensationauof with interest at 6% p.a. from the
‘VV’c};a.te ‘Cpeftition till ‘thémdate of deposit. Aggrieved by the
.,’fi1ed”_jthis appeal, seeking enhancement.
V
The-iearned counsel for the appellant contended that
compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and
.sufierings, loss of amenities of life, nourishing food, conveyance
2/
-4-
and attendant charges and loss of income during the period of
treatment is totally inadequate. He fh€g@9i%submitted that the
impugned judgment and award need to be modified.
6. As against this, the learned Couns__ei’~..fo1′:.A_d.the 2133 d
respondent submitted that, the” ‘1’riLtii*ial-I’
consideration of the material on record. has awarded just and”,
reasonable compensation and therefore, notneall for
interference. V ‘ _’
‘7. We have earefuilyt”considered.the”submissions made
by the learnedjvthde parties.
8. point’ that ‘ea,r_Vi’s.e.’fo_r our consideration is, Whether
the Tribunat a\vVstarde.d”j’:;.’s’t and reasonable compensation’?
‘nrelevantdto note, the Tribunal has awarded a
— towards pain and sufferings. The
– 1: 3
d appe1iantV__has;Asttffered head injury and has taken treatment as
it”.’::v”.4A”gin-patient…«from 1.1.2005 to 5.1.2005 and thereafter, from
h/’
29.1.2005 to 31.1.2005 and has undergone operation. The
head injury has resulted in permanent disability.
has awarded a sum of Rs.i5,000/– towards pain
which is inadequate. Having regard to the .1’1atui}e of: i11juzty,” =
duration and nature of treatment, our considered
sum of Rs.25,000/– would be a reasonable surn
and sufferings and accordingly, it”is_awarde(i.._ ‘T l I
10. The Tribunal of Rs.15,000/–
towards loss of life: disability. The
appellant has. V and has undergone
operatioiiil permanent disability of
10%. that the appellant will get
frequen.t.Vheadache’andit reduced his earning capacity by
igci/0_v-is._.C’ITiew. appellantlllhas to suffer discomfort throughout his
llife”.’ f’i’.ribii11.al_:.has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/– towards
loss’ of life and permanent disability which is
‘inadequate’:. Having regard to the nature of disability and the
“discorf1fort the appellant has to suffer, in our considered view,
of Rs.40,000/– would be a reasonable sum towards loss
Lg
of amenities of life and disability and accordingly, it
is awarded.
11. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs..’3;’Q(p)0/–
towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendarit chaérges.
The appellant was in–patient from 1.1.2005 to
thereafter, from 29.1.2005 to 31.1.,’2,005’uand thereaf:¢r;–1’«»h.és.
taken follow up treatment. Thereforeafinl’-our co11sidered–.:1fie£Tw;~_VV
the compensation awarded it ‘T1-ibpunalvvéllllltowardslVV
conveyance, nourishing: ..foodp..1″a11rlfl’- attendant’-A charges is
inadequate and a sum of — areasonable sum
and accordinglfiit is::;.awarde_d. it
awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-
towards lossof the period of treatment. The
appellant has taken treaitment as inpatient from 1.1.2005 to
5.1′..20051″”a;1:1thereafter, from 29.1.2005 to 31.1.2005 and
follow up treatment. Therefore, it is
_prope’r toqalward a sum of Rs.6,000/– towards loss of income
.4 H ” the period of treatment and accordingly, it is awarded.
LV/
_ 7 _
13. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards
medical expenses is just and proper and therefore, it does not
call for interference. I
14. The total compensation payable to
Rs. 1,21,000/– and the break–up is as follows:
(a) Towards pain and sufferings p ‘– _ it
(b) Towards loss of amenities of’ ”
life and disability ‘ ‘M 2 — ‘
{(1) Towards medical expen’se.s’ it Rs.4Q,CO(u§”?dEV
{(1} Towards nourishing food’
And attendant e-harges ” *
(e) Towards ‘ Rs.6,000/–
During the pyeriodaof.
treait1:;ent’_ A *
Aeeordii1§jIy*y_ the appeal is allowed and the impugned
judgdndlentd ‘ u*af_jnci}=VV’award, passed by the Tribunal, in
‘ ‘iM.V.CiN.o:’1.2?i§)/2OO5, stands modified, granting compensation
pf i<s.~i,21',ooo/– instead of Rs.80,000/–. with interest at 6%
from the date of petition till the date of reaslisation. The
L/..
second respondent~Insurance Company shall deposit the
amount within eight weeks from today. The entire amount
shall be released in favour of the apyellant.
Draw up the award, accordingly.