High Court Karnataka High Court

Albert D’Souza vs Mr Munivenkatappa on 29 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Albert D’Souza vs Mr Munivenkatappa on 29 September, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna
   S:§rii,'-LR.1\/in. Ra1'i1'3;i{I"iSh.na, Advocate]

IN T HE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 297" DAY OF SE/IfTEMBER 20 

: PRESENT :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.'1?A }_r-IL'   % T '

AND
THE I-ION"BLE MR. JIVI,S'_I4'ICEAHA.'S.. KEMPANNAV   '

M.F.A.NO. 705 O1$"2006 {M.V1 " 

M.F.A.NQ.'=-_11358VQF.:;0OfS[MV]

M.F.A.NO. 705 or 2OO6_V(_1V\_/v£?'V.]_   "
Between:        

1. Albert D's01--.i__zg; _  ¢
S/Q'.-«SE31V£x117?1(fi 3J'.Sou.za,.__ ' '
Age'-Vd 61'ye*¢r_s, 4  '
R/a1;.No; 9.7;'  '  _ ._

Near' Gayathrf; "fl=*>!1.7_'3[1]l'of MV act, 
Judgment and Award dated: 09/ 08/ 2005. Passe.dv«Inm1\/EVC. -. '

No. 1481/2003 on the file of tile 'X1 Addi.._Judge,"iMember,
MACT, Court of Small Causes. 1\/_l_etorpolitan'Area, Bangalore
{SCCH--12}, partly allowing' the 'claim petition for
compensation and seeking.'ez1han;:;en'ie.r1t. of compensation.

M.F.A.NO. 11368.01?' 2005a/IV}  _ 

Between:    _. .,   V    

1. NewIn.d.ial'Ass1iifance_Co; Ltd." 
Bagalur lviansionf, 11 Floor, 
Doddap_et, Kolar¢5'S3'~]_0'1...__ -- A
'I'hrough._1ts Ban.g"alo're  
Divisional Office,   , "

Unity Bu"il.di'ngs,:_ _ 
4?" Floor, Tower Block,
._   ..... 
A «_B'.:~ngalore.¢_
  "       .  Appellant
*- [By Sri ; . 3.2V/'.HeVgde Mulkhand, Advocate}

\-All-' .

, * 184/ 0. Selvarad D'souza,
v __Aged about 62 years,
= Residing at No. 97,
% Near Gayathri Temple,

AM

1}



15"' Cross, Basavanapura Road,
Bangalore--56O 036.

2. Munivenkatappa
Major,
Residing at Uddappanahalli Village,
Chakarasarnahalli Post.
Kolar Taluk and District.

[By Sri. RM. Ramakrishna, Advocate fo:.f'R1:'; '

 . . .;l2eVs'por1dents"'.

Sri. M,Shivaprakash and Sn'.  Ci1_in:1appa,.A_,dV'ocat  C'

for R2}

  

This MFA is ftiettu/s A1,'-i*3{,i_;3l of-».,MV Act'-against the
Judgment and Award €l_EtIi€('1Z'_ 09,/08a./200,5 Passed In MVC.
No. 1481/2003 on the fiietdofthe;X1_AdVdl."Judge, Court of
Small Causes and Mem.b.er_,'-..NiAC,Tl', 'livangalore (sccH--12},
awarding compensation; of ,?f§,l2,00'Q/--'w%ith interest at 6%
pa. from the éilattirof petiti'.:_)n till the date of deposit of the
amount in {thenTfibi3;nai'~._eXc'i~1.;ding[interest on the amount
awarded towarcls future metl_ic_al"expenses.

Tiiese'   on for Hearing, this day,
N.K. PATIVL.'-J., d§1li'_C'r€d"~  following:

FJuDGMENT

  « :"i'l1ese~- appea1s""by the claimant and the Insurance

 directed against the Very same judgment

anAd.,_V  Afdated 931 August 2005, passed in

R""'--._VVV"M.V.C,P¢io'.I481/2008 by the X1 Addl. Judge, Member,

   Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes,

-'_*",'w"m_'.____,,_,,,,.,'.,,,.«.»J

 * »v.iiietropo1itan Area, B%galore [SCCI-I-12], (for short,



'Tribunal' ] awarding compensation of ?3,12,000/-- with

6% interest per annum, as against their claim

claimant for ?18.00 Lakhs.

2. While the claimant has fi_led._the  on   V"

ground that the compensation awyaridedv 

and needs enhancement, the-ignsnrahfice 
filed the appeal on thg,g;:ound""that"th.e iribunai is not
justified in awardingatl  ?72,000/»--
towards loss  income at
'€6,000/~  towards medical
expensesliwm   be set aside, by
modifying.   and award passed by

Tribunazl.

" '~  ., . >  'facts Vinlbvrief are that the respondent No. 1

claims to be aged about 59 years at

the ‘time_v’ofV’faccident and was working as ‘Technical

lViangagei’°-;’:’ getting salary of ?141»,OlO/– per month and

-deductions, net salary of a sum of ?10,500/– per

it Inonth as per Ex.P9 salary voucher. He was hale and

%W

healthy prior to the date of accident. He filed a claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles “-Act,

contending that at about 9:30 A.M., on 13.01.2003,

while he was riding his Kinetic I-Ionda

No.KA–03 /E1-1-491, to go to his :;f;{£it¢:r3;

Road ESI hospital 3’unction,,the dmker of

No.CTA 7836 drove the a rash. “and negiigent
manner and dashed rrehicie, due

to which he sustained,._ immediately

shifted to aid treatment ‘

was gi§fenVd’an.d. todfiosmat Hospital, where
fracture. was — he underwent major
surgeries.

it is the caseof the claimant that he has taken

period of two and a half months and

during this iperiod, he has undergone lot of untold pain

Vdand agony and spent considerable arnount towards

_’ medical expenses, conveyance, nourishing food and

“attendant charges apar from other incidental expenses.

_~”___W__,_,_,.,,,L

The doctor has assessed the disability at 7 5% in respect

of left lower limb. 10% towards shoulder and in

towards whole body. Further, it is his case _

of the injuries sustained in the accident,_–‘he” not ”

attend the Office for about four

he has to be compensated reas,o11ab13rh 2 .

5. On account the’;ii–n£iuries._’sustained,fin the
accident, claimant fileldfthe’ before the
Tribunal, under V ‘Vehicles Act.

seeking iakhs against
the owner of the offending
vehicl\~’*~-,_ petition had come up for

consicpi.-Ciratioln before fthe””f[‘ribunal on 9%” August 2005.

‘Tlré1e”‘r*-T” rilziunal, aftefconsidering the relevant material

after appreciation of the oral and

docu.ment’ary evidence, allowed the claim petition in

awarding a sum of 13,12,000/~ under different

-_he’ads’l, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of

if ‘petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the

AM

I

quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, the

Insurance Company has presented this appeal, seelririg

reduction of compensation on the ground _

compensation awarded is excessive, pexorbitanitv a’nd’–_is

on the higher side.

6. We have heard leailnedzgcounsel. ford

claimant and learned Counse1_…app_e’aringhlforlnsfurance
Company for considerable’ _V

7. Afterjcritical records
available perusal of the
judgment”and’:awaf3d– can be seen that the
occurrence’ of the resultant injuries

sustained the clairnlant are not in dispute. It is also

‘xdnot dispute that””the claimant was aged about 59

3rea.;s;euzo;k:ng Technical Manager in a Private firm,

getting of ?l4,010/– per month and net

R.””‘~..VVV’salary.oft?10.5O0/- as per Ex.P9, salary voucher. The

g.rol_aimant has taken treatment for a period of two and a

half months and underwent four surgeries. The Doctor

L

has assessed the disability towards left lower limb at

75%, 10% towards the shoulder, and whole

disability at 27%. But, the Tribunal, after _

the oral and documentary evidencehhgas reeasvsessed the it it

whole body disability at 10% for lord:-:fs..,,y0’f:;_Al

future income. The claimanthas to u’n.dergol.:thi.s~.ord.ea1

throughout his life and this _in.._theway._gof_his day
to day activities. He has treatment and
bed rest for abc)u1»:_ have spent
some amount. nourishing food and
regard to all these
aspectsifwe ?f7.5,000/- towards pain and

sufferings as _”aga:1.nsts$55,000/–, $40,000/– towards

.”con”v-eya.n’ce’;– by nourishing food and attendant charges,

towa_1:ds loss of amenities, discomforts, and

unla-appvj..:1ess it on account of disability as against

and a sum of $42,000/– towards loss of

income during treatment period at the rate of ?10,500/–

per month for a period of four months as against

?°24,000/ — awarded by Tribunal.

8. Further, so far as the compensation _

towards loss of future income is _conce1’n.ed,”‘as_j .right1y

pointed out by learned counsel

the claimant is not entitled forany cornpensatior_i””under

the said head. Admittedly,_.the.”L_e1ainianlt” ‘wa.s_:l1ready
aged about 59 years at the of and more
over, he has not document to

show that he on account of the

disability” acciderit. Therefore, in the l

absence ~ arlfi’ we hereby Set aside the

compensatiofi of…’?’l’?t’2,VOCl0/- awarded by Tribunal

llltowairdsij”‘loss of llwfutlure income, holding that no

be awarded under the said head.

,.__’How’eVer, the Tribunal is justified in awarding a

of “?l,25,000/~ towards medical expenses as it is

on the bills produced and $6,000/~ towards

%–~——*~”””‘”””‘

10

future medical expenses and hence, it does not call for

interference.

10. In the light of the facts and circumstarices

of the case, as stated above, the appeals

claimant and also the Insurance Company””are.a1l:oWedit

in part. The impugned judgrnentoparg-d’.av\rartt.’da:teri’-L._0*¢*’:;vat

August 2005, passed in M.V.C.F\to;..”1x.48i’/R0013 by’v:t’h.e
Judge. Member, Motor Accidentmfjittaiins biourt of
Small Causes. Metropolitarait-area, hereby
modified, awarding total jV?r’3,48,000/– as
against with interest at

6% per:;vannu,%;¥fron1.A the»’d_ate of petition tilt the date of

reaiization. p4T1ne hreaki follows:

Towargds Pain and Vsuxffervi rigs 7 5,000 / —

\\» , t.ffow–a_rds ;Med_icai eXp€~nS€S

/4-I/’~H

1.25.000/–

Towards A _Loss._ of income during ? 42,000/–
‘ treatrnen-t »pe_rio cl * .

0 it _ disab’i1ity._’

ToWa__1fds”‘}oss_oftfliilenities, discomforts 3 60.000/~
and. ‘unhappiness on account of

H M 0’ ‘ ‘-Woman d, attendant charges

‘Towards conveyance, nourishing food 1’ 40.000/-

‘«.Towarc_is future medical expenses 06,000/M

/\-R/’H

TOTAL 3,48,00(}/-

A

11

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

enhanced compensation of €36,000/~»~, with inte’r_e’st_

thereon at 6% per annum, within four _

date of receipt of copy of the judgm_6:1nt__and_– ”

011 deposit of the said a1not1nt1’_by: insutfaiicéfd

Company, the same shall bet._V1:”e1,easedV:iri. the

claimant. immediately.

The amount it Insurance
Company. is:, to the

OfI’i’ce’ to actcordzingly.


     sdl-L
 c      Iudge

Sd/--
Iudge