IN THE HIGH COURT me" KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 23'"! DAY ore' AuGu$TM,A'j2oaaij[ 3
PREsENT;
THE HON'BLE MR. Ju,3TzcE'u13:}:«:pAx
Ann. L
THE HOPPBLE, M8.JUb"I'1CE:4 .§;'s,B0pA1§'NAV'
MESCELLANEOUS FIRST (MV)
BETWEEN: _
SMTRANI wro I'--.i§.'i<£.MU'P?TH3§.,"' «_ " V
43 ms, 125;? B? HE-f:t__HU!§BAND
ASNEX?i'FR1EN£3M.K;ME!RTHI .
R/O R.9.JEE1IANA<3¢a~3, NI»T'£~'I_JR---,__ -- -
PU'I'fiJE2'VILI,A(3E, 'Uf}.Ui-'*!_TQ,.4
_ _ ' AP?ELLAN'£'
(By 8:"; ; EAVANAQHENDRA énwrw, ADV.)
I mfiaéiitssfi mémsa.
' ms ouncgmagg MOTORS,
H;é§N("3};1:R,..~KUNDAP1}RA TQ.
'2. THE" QEIENTAL INSURANCE co.
" LTD, REP ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
A 5f .,§<u~;~IDAPUreA. Rasmmanrrs
V' .(.a'§ SR1 B.C.S!-IIVANNE GOWDA, ADV. FOR
SR! A.M.VENKA'K'ESH, ADV. FOR R2, R-1 Si)!
in
'n
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION V'
ACT AGAINST THE JU'.OGMEN'!' AND AWARID ~ .. V
PASSED IN MVC 130.1275/O3 ON 'l_fHE,__F'}I.E OF'
JUDGE (SRDNI 85 MEMBER AEIDL. MAUI'. 'i'{UNDA.FUR;' A'
ALLOW1NG THE CLAIM PE'I'T'l'ION . -.
This appeal havm' g h-com' _ S ' V
on for pmnouncement this day;
the following:
Thc Cmm mm:
" Vagaiust: the amaunt
awmdegby Tribunal (for short
the "No. 1275/ 2093. By the said
judgment sum of Rs. 12,40,000/~ has been
com" that while the appellant was walk:m' g by the
{aide nwzr Brindavan Hotel, Udupi, on 14.10.2003
against the appellant. The acmldent is ~
ocscuned due to the ms]: and t"
The appellant was taken to
thereafter she was shiftcd.'in__
wherein she was treated as the
dmnaga, the appellant ._
by her during the The that
respondent while tm 2"'
respondent hawcvcr
denied vthét the rash Md ncgligtnt
act of #12:’! alleged that the appcl-mt
was ncgligencc. Furthcr the claim
with to was also denied.
._ mien’ g not: of the rival contentions
_ ham’ “ed raugnssm farits consideration. Aftaer ansWcnng’ the
” i”-.. 3isstza5:’:.a in-‘féatvour of the appellant, a part of the chum’ was
A _ Insofar as the kxling relating to the negligence’ of
bus driver; the amount of compensation already awarded
1:
ncxve is ‘mdicaI3cd. Them are also other ‘
fbrchcad over fitmtal mgon. 1=’o1j_.::h¢’ ‘
appellant had undengam
mmxmitmay as disclosed bymg; A
and P39. ‘I’hcmaftcr the treated
as an inpatient. In an inpatimt for
26 days and oontizmcd after a ycar.
Thc husband Qf amino she
was not in git evidence due no the
diaahi1i::y’§§:J;g~ga’4..;i’1:: aw em. The doctors who
had thé aiso examined as P.W.3 md
P.W.4,_ _1->.W.”3 the Gp£ima1m”° olog1s’ t who has szauzd with
‘~ the appellant to her right eye due
to the optic name. The docmr who was
mm” is the Ncum Surgeon.
\*Iith mgani In the seriousness of the injuries and
I xfimm of disability, no doubt the MAC’? has mferrcd tso
evidence of Pw.3 and Pw.4 in claw] and no13cmg’ * the
.12
‘o
disability stated due to lass of vision Md M
reckoned the disability at 30% But. ‘
disability coupled with cm: cm once- , ozfmé
would notbcablc to do Vcr’!§$dl§;_ingVV1:§3thc
nemomm disability, she to take
care: of hcmclf but 1a since she has
lost hm’ mummy V Ix-@333-fig,” husband wan
cmwed. Th.-gt’ In be worked
out under of future mam” g
would rfiaxaé m5;7;.;e_’V of mm’ ‘ ‘ g to 80% as
assesacci’~33j,<–tfic that. aspect}: in vimv, the
adequgtc haw: to bc domed and for the
' out.
“’22 this mgani though the husband of the appellant
that she was earning Rs.5,€)O0/~ per month, he has
“tn subsmntiatc the same. Though the Trmunal ms
V to Exh-s.P45 and P47 to a:rnve’ at notnonal’ mom’ of
J:
4′!
Rs.1,250/~, we we of the new’ that the
just1fied’ . The sand’ documentaan:.f.hc.;Ih_4A V’
the adms’ aion sheet of District ;:m»a;;itz;;’Tai:d’TTsurjjta.’%mga,%
the amount paid by the tn
ooilection of gold filings. an:
appmximam and fig: fiict am pxaidr
to thc disability 811:: was aha:
bodied and cannot be in work """ M '$3 g work in the shops in the of gold filings. That
apart aha, she would contribute and
–‘ gs the aocidcnt was in the year W03,
at Rs.3000/* would not be an
mg ‘ Hence, if the said wage is reckoned and
.if of 12 as adapted by the ‘l’r.ilmna1 is
H M K the amount tnwanrls disability md 1035 43¢’ futun:
would be in a sum afRa.3,-45,600/-.
E
8. The learned counsel tbr the V’
aspect eonacnded that even
by this Court wank! be reasonable,
should be made inwards * L’
amount is being awarded It
is conmnded that it one-t.h1’ni
of the amount personal
expenses. ‘I’h:-1:” human in
add, m be afivc unlike in the
such deduction is to be made.
the dwisaon’ m the caac of
=.I§’.a’.§Lii.%T’I’:4§}€’f’iA§)E:.. vs. M/S PEST CONTROL (INDIA; Wr.
LTD AND {Ara 3.995 so 755) and in the mac of NEW
;1;~ID1A” ASSQRANCE co. LTD vs. CHARLIE AND ANOTHER
1l31)(SC). We have perused the said judgments
by the Hon’bk: Supreme Court and find that firmly
‘ ” ob.-sexvations made therein’ are takan’ g into
L
‘on
cf the judgments, the Hmrble Sggpxeync rxsmeii K 2
stated that the percentage of
expenditure cannot be %’
by universal’ apppliwtion upon
cimumsmmoes of each the we been
noticed in the said case mount.
The-:refo1e as a guidance
and if tbs .A it is noticed that the
‘ ” feat was wm’k:tn’ g in a small
team in “E{a””mata]ea and theme is nothing
on meani appellant had to travel any
‘~ ” expen “” ‘A Av sea to reach her work phone and
arid of the persons of lower sham which
expenses cannot be assumed and as
are of the View that the facts of the present case
V. eat call for deduction on that gxoum and the entire
.-
fa
derivative on the said head calculated above V”
9. In so fiat as the * L’
the Tribunal has no dpubt tgfider the
other conventional itgis on the
lower side. The has been
indicated details of the
same is judgment. in so far as
the — has mm. into
but me fiat
that flak: admitted ofand cm md was
‘~ Q certain cxpcnscs £0: which that
came: be ruled out and as such a mmgaml
a would have to be made, which we
nssesfis ##us.;h¢%.£om1 of Rs.30,()00/- i.c., including the amount
23,; the ‘I’ribuna!. On the hwd of loss of ‘moomc
the Txtibunai had oonaidcmd the 3% for
VT czfsix mantha on the rate at which the WW had
J;
‘h
been noticed by it. Since we have reckoned _
Rs.3,000/- per month, the same for a ”
would amount as R:-I.18,O00/~, whifih T
the other heads towards food’ ,: _ ‘cnt,
convcyancc, during the of’.
R3.20,00O/- is awamied..
10. That; summg the
Txibuznal In a normal
have been adequah.
But, in fi_:1c” the aspect mxauag
to disability the name of injmiea
suficxixig mm be faced by the appellant due to
and lzcum-aurg1cal’ disability. No doubt
is awmfled on the pound of dzaalnhty”
_ the oompcnsatsom towards pain,’ suficna’ g
%%*mamnw agony would in fact be normally an the puma
_”c.1;’xr:n§ which the same is undergone by the injmud i.c.,
the pcxiod of moovcry, but, in the instant mac, the
J2
1:
very natuxe in whm 11 she has bum rend. cred ” ‘A ‘
fame her to undergo the suflbzring K 2
her cum ma: inn’ :3 which in fact mt
mums of money in its real
case, it is also on record that 21;: 5: t1 1E:ahnent,
sh: had been looked 5;: such if
she is in the same state to expect
that then: wo;;1«,3Ifi_c with her
throughout to kccp an attnndmat
thmug1:.t;:ii; awn-mg cvcn wmut.
‘r2m~croxé,. in view, it would be
appmp:na tn’ of R.s.1,00,000/– towards this
2 A. H ….. .. V
of the above disc’ 133311135′ , the apps]. lmt
to a total amount 01″ Rs.5,l3,600/– as
jagaius; sum awarded by the Tribunal. The ghnt
be entitled to interest at 6% pa. cm the
amountfromthedahaofpctition tillpaynmnt. The
is
enhanced portion along with intcmat shall be ‘
the Insurance company within a of u 2
the date ofmocipt fifoc1’fified ouvpy ‘V ‘V
12. In the result, the The
appellant would also b6 . I
in this appeal fmm the as for
the said ‘g,.§j33.,§i=_g,¢
Sd/-
Iud e
Sd –
….. Judge