IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQ,RE:""T..,_
fl.
marge THIS 'I'i~iE139 DAY 01:' JULY 2008;?" ' «I A'
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MRSJUSTICE M;i\NJU LAg CEELLIJEVV A T
AND
THE I~I()N'BLE MR.JUS'I'ICEV,!{._bi.KE;':'§If§Z5xVANAE§5';5gY)§r;IA "
M.F.A.N0.9991
M. RA. N€) ,9~689 'I
BETWEEN: -- _ Z
1__l\¥1'rm_:ANr1Ex§:,« ~
P KALEEVGA-AR};Q R'€;A13'-_f-
BANGALORE -- .
BY DULY CONSTiT'UTE.DE'{1'*if0RNEY
_ _ ' ...APF'ELLAN'I'
(By Sn': KEVSURYANARAYANA; R50, ADV.)
Arm :
V 3 '.V'Iv'C,"FOIV{5vf§§E;°;F§§DAVID
s/ Q ALEXANDER
; AGED ABOUT 33. YEARS
_ R/AT NQ"I, I BLOCK I MAIN
ROAD, M.S.R. NAGRA
* .};:AN§;AL0RE * 94
V NEAHESH MOTORS
W "BY PROPRIETOR
* no 81 PARKAL MU'I"I',
TANK BUM) ROAD
BANGALORE - 9
$4
P SHELLAIAH
MAJOR iN AGE
NOP. 1G5~A SURREYPALYAM
P081' P VELUR
NAMMAKAL
REGIONAL MANAGER 1
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G. ROAD
BANGALORE ~ 1
(By Sri.K.S.ASHOK KUMAR, ADV. 1;'
SRI.G.NANII)A KUMAR, ADv__§~oR--_R~:; _
SRi.A.M.VENKATESH, ADV. 1r__1~"2 R;--#1 "
5' AMFA N*i5§53'?' 0F'*Aé0<AiA
BETWEEN:
1
M13 NATi,O_NA_L 1N:$I.;RANc:1«: <:-m:>
N().14,4 SUBHA.RAh}{{ COM.PLEX--
M G ROAD' . " " ' '
BANGALORIE} 1 BY' yrs '» " ~ 4.
REGIONAL__MANA'GER.. »' APPELLANT
{By 81'}. C; '?viA0NNAV'PP.A,VV Ami.)
x?1.cff<jR A1~£A_Ni3 DAVED s/0 ALEXANDER
AGE-D :32 YEARS
NO 1, ~.1ST;_3L0cK 18'? MAIN RAOD
"M S R NAGARA
A 'CfBAN:GrALORE-560094
Mg/3 MAHESH MOTORS
.331 ITS PROPRIETGR
NO 81 PARKAL MUTT
TANK BUN D ROAD
BANGALORE
%s~/A
' V. . . R'Es1§0vNt:EV:irfSi A
3
3 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE} so we
R O NO 28 UNYFY BUILDING ANNEX
MISSION ROM)
BANGALOREHZ7
4 SR1? SHELLAIAH '
N().1()3-A SURRPELYAM POST
VEERAN NAPALYAM TALUK
PVELUR
NAMMAKAL RES?.QN--DE;_N'FS
(By Sri : K S ASHOK K{JMAE~,.ADv.,EO--E_"E¥1»__
SRI.A.M.VENKA'I'ESH, ADV'.-.¢_F'§)R R-4
DISPENSED WITH. R43 IS SER§.fED.}L7 ' " --
THESE MFAS ARE FILED 'U~,{S.41?jf3{_13 0;?' MV AOT AGAINST
THE COMMON JU_"fi(3"§%,t!'i%1I'IT:--.AT%I1)" AWARE-BATES: 26/O3/2005
PASSED IN MVC«'i*I'O,I?0';1/"19-39~.._ON 'EPEE FILE OF 14TH ADDL.
JUOGE, MEMBER OF SMALL CAUSES,
EANOALORE ._ 1.0') ._AWARQI»NG COMPENSATION OF
RS.10,-47,800/-- Wim INTEREST @ 6% PA. FROM THE DATE OF
PETFFION 'I'i'i..L OA§'.E'OF"tOEEOS1T.
THESE M.'E§AE.V eOM1N.c§ ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
KESHA vAgvAEAYANA,V_J;; DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JU DGMENT
are iisted for orders, by the consent of
55$'-T.S. .é1;epeais were heard On merits and are being
" éi:-=._i;:=<'2'~!=".¢d; af"a~:;;$ordiag1y.
both these aypeals arise out of same judgment and
Efgvard-Fpassed by the Tribzmal in MVC NO.1709/99 01}. the file Of
.AV:vtheVMACT, Bangalore (SCCH-3.0), both these appeais were heard
together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
4
3. The appeliant in M.F.A.NO.9991/2005 was arraig_e,ed._as
respondent No.3, while the appellant in
was arraigned as respondent No.5 ”
respondent No.1 in both these appeals}, . 3 A
4. The appellants are tl1eVii;tiei;rere” of
involved in the accident in _.c}.ai1i1ant fided claim
petition seeking eompenseiioii for the
personal injuries ‘by hincx on the
motor vehicle 4.15 pm. on
14.7.1998 insurer of the bus in
question, the petitioner, on the date of
the accident, Vlieleyiti-aei*t»1′”aee”el]ix1g in bus bearing Registration
if ozi Beiigelere Davanagere Road, near Tavarekere
“}’a1e.l§, bus dashed against the lorry bearing
39 A 4447 which came from the opposite
.diur’ee_tion a~:3,dt.iz1 the said accident, he sustained multiple
injury to his left; eye and during the
V. the left eye was removed by surgery and an artificial
ball was implanted and thus, he suffered permanent
V:-idisabiiity by Way of complete loss of vision in his left eye.
6
respect of those vehicles and its validity as on the
accident.
6. After assessing the oral and clQcz,;e.ieI1tary”evideg1e§:
placed by the parties, the Tribunal ‘e3*c_lthe
appeal held that the accident due “telitlie leomposite
negligence of the driver of the lorry.
The Tribunal held that the vehicles are
equally responsible’ of the oral and
documentary Tribunal awarded
i¥Zs.1{),47,8(,}:lv()”/1 variceus heads and
directed payhxerit ef amount by the owner and the
insurer of, both the siiehglclesl’-at.’50°xE> each.
‘ *33ein__g’~aggrieved by the said judwent and award, the
viz1surer_§—-.,_5fv.bet’§; vehicles have presented these appeals
that the finding of the Tribunal on the
”ef actionable negligence is perverse and contrary to the
..;efJider1’ce en record. They have else questioned the quanttmz ef
Acempensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive and
= ::_”eX0rbitar1t.
%
7*’
8. Upon service of notice of these appeals, the ,ciaii£1;ant
appeared through his counsel.
9. 1 have heard the learned co1:I.,{iseie.i’oij sidealaitd A
perused the records.
10. From the perusai of the fee-oVird.s, it is that the
accident on account of collie-iioin ~t.Iie.”b:;s and the lorry in
question is not disputed. Thefifact Isgiid accident, the
ciaimant sustained complete loss of visiot:
in his left The reading of the
averments petition as a whole gives £113.
impressior: itiieivacoideintiiieas due to the rash and negligent
i the by its respective drivers. The
evidetiee. of establishes the manner in which the accident
to his evidence, the driver of the bus drove
-. ji:§’;ei vehicie high speed in a rash aad negligent manner and
to overtake. another vehicle dashed against the
The Tribunal having regard to the evidence on record has
that there was sufficient road space for the lorry drier to
“move on to the left side to make way for the btts, which was
@
8
coming from the opposite direction by overtaking;
vehicle and in spite of that the iorzy driver fai1e§i:*–
iony to the left: sicie ané thereby failed, to.ayoi<i
is unéer these circumstances, the Tfibuiioi '
accident was on account of comgosite negligence the
drivers of the vehieie.
11. Having regarci to we are of the
considered opinioii committed any
error in holding; to the composite
negligence no ground to interfere
with the evidence, none of the drivers
have entered “2szitI:e§*ss “Therefore, there is no substance
of these app6£ i{h regarei to the
on the question of actionable negligence.
— Vi””–vVTherefox*e,i the finding of the Tribunal on the question
. . of actionable, giegljge nee.
— 12; The next aspect required to be considered is whether
‘ coinjdensafion awaréed by the Tribimai is excessive or just and
‘V ‘ ‘ i K1 Vreasonable.
/’1
9
13. There is no dispute that at the time of theecoidetnt,
the claimant was studying in second
.}.J.M.Medica1 Coiiege, Davanagee. Therejs a1so”fic3.: ” .
on account of injuries sustained by irgthe éiccideI3t’,”V?{ieA1′;;:a,s
lost complete vision in his left e3?e’«-and for eosmio’ an,”
artificial eye ball has been inserted left eye; d_
14. Under these has awarded
the following amounts.._v;nder_ vari.ous..1ieaj_t1s;
. Painfisagony b , Rs. 90,000–00
.Medica1expenses’~– ~– Rs. 50,o0o–0o
. Co11veyance”&.-11o:uI’is?m:Iei1t”* Rs. 130,000-00
.Academi<l:1oss. — I Rs. 30,000-00
. Loss of higher._edu.catio;1" Rs. 30,000–00
. Loss of marriage prospects ' Rs. 25,000–()()
.Loss ofamenities" V Rs. 30,000–00
. Loss ofgfijtuxe iz1c'o.meV Rs. 6,52,800–0O.
. sssss Total Rs. m,47,s0o–oo
._'O3-JC3'\Ul~«€-'I-C4.3bJr-u
:=2§§i&i§i;~,jg'fieVanCe of the appeflants in both these
:'.r"é1ppea1sA'§.s award of compensation of Rs.1,40,000/–
conféeyance and nourishment and Rs.6,52,800/~
of future income are on the higher side and they
..r_eq§Jj,red to be reduced. During the course of the arguments,
was no serious chailenge to the quantum of compensation
"awarded under the other heads. Even otherwise, we find that
10
the award of Rs.90,000/- towards pain and agony,
towards medicai expenses, Rs.3{),000/~ towards
Rs.30,000/- towards loss of higher-“edu<:at§,on,t." '
towards loss of marriage prospects
loss of amenities oarmot be termed'.exce.esive –ha::ifig't£egard
the nature of the disabiiity weho was a
medical student at the awards made
under these heaqsajirr are just and
reasonable. It it that the claimant is a
Malaysian he India for pursuing his
eduoation _
16. wml retgasgtt no the award of Rs.1,40,000/– under the
rrottrishraent”, we find that the Tribunai
hast amount by taking into consideration the
accident, the ciaimant was required to go to
” ._V:1’i:2t1’ve oiaoe in Maiaysia on two or three occasions and for
spent lot of amounts by travelling by air. In View of
same, We are of the opinion that the award of Rs. 1,40,000/-
t’~_toWards conveyance and nourishment cannot be cozisidereé as
/3
%.
11
high or exorbitant and there is no scope for interfe1’ence:h”i;he
said award.
17. On account of loss of complete :visi.oi1_ii1′.’tt;e’ieft eye;
admitterily the claimant has st1fferedV”.;eermane’i2tAA
Medical evidence on record has
suffered 40% of disability’ The
Tribunal, on the basis of eas held that on
account of ‘bjethe ciaimant in the
form of complete’. eye, he has suffered
loss of We do not see any
error committed hy’ in this regard. The learned
counsel for. did not seriously dispute the
regard. It is in evidence that after
the has completed his MBBS course and
T’ now ‘practic;ia’g’A in his Country. However, there was no
.. it evidence to substantiate the contention of the
he wouid have earned a minimum sum of
— per month if he had not suifered the disability.
‘LU-etier these circumstances, the Tribune} has taken the notiona}
“income of the claimant at Rs.8,0(){}/~ per month and on that
E2
basis calculated the ioss of future earning by the
income as the loss. in that View of the matter,
reckoned Rs.38,4irG0/ – as annual loss “U3! i
of 17, as clainiant was aged about 25 a§g§far–dediia:’.
of Rs.6,52,800/- towards loss of of V
permanent disability. Having regard: faet a young
person studying MBBS left eye, the
method adopted by, total future loss
of income qj’1}:1’I1}:’2i”O}3t’:T or erroneous.
Assuming claimant could not
have Jgizsost graduation course, even
with a MBBS degreetflif not incurred complete loss of
sfision e3;eA,”i1e——-would have practiced effectively as a
General’ earned substantial amount. The complete
Iloss of ‘vision eye has certainly affected the profession
the ehi&ant_ as a £)octor and to that extent it has affected his
capacity’ also. Taking into consideration the facts
“.’jand’.”cirennastanees of the case, We are of the opinion that the
has rightly taken the income of the claimant as
:§1s.8,000/ — per month and on that basis it has rightly awarded
13
Rs.6,52,800/~– towards loss of future income on of
gaexmanent. disability. Therefore, We see no error
the Tribunal in this regard.
18. In this View of the matter,
awarded. by the Tribunal cannot “termyed and
exorbitant. No gound is of the
awards made by the heads. The
Tribunai has aWarotiiVtI1ese appeals.
19. are dismissed. The
amount in sifeposit the Tribunal. No order
astocost. V _ –
Sd/-
Judge Q’ .
Sd/-
Judge
RS/*