» 1f. _VSM'l5NAz(3RINA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY or OCTOBER PRESENT THE I-ION'BLE1V£R. JUSTICE N.K,-- " AND THE HOIVFBLE MR JUSTICE K 1\i M.F.A. N0. 241's"C<e:,V):1*«'» 2oo6"Lmq BETWEEN: V ' ' 1 SMT VIJAYA _ 5 W/O GANGA'D_HARA ~ AGED ABCU<;r_.27 YEAR-S ._ NO.U/A,'1§';113,_j1STjMA1N if; . .
BANCAI1Q_RE1–:5_6oQ21___ ” ”
. . . APPELLANT
[BY sR1.”MxARi
v»*L/’eV”w’x'”£é’£z_C.AHME:D
— % ‘–.AGED”_’*AB;OUT 30 YEARS
NO,~i8;j2.ND CROSS
“GOAPALPURA, MAGADI ROAD
1E§A1§¥GAI,ORE
“THE MANAGER
“NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
DODDABALLAPURA BRANCH,
SRINIVASA MARKET COMPLEX
CINEMA ROAD, DODDABALLAPURA
BANGALORE} 561203
RESPONDENTS
{BY SRI. B c SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV. FOR R2._– d ”
R1~ NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(MI)”‘(3}? ‘MV’AC:tr__Ac§A1N’Sr A’
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DA”I?ED[:”i 7/10.__/2005 ‘ .PASS_ED
IN Mvc NO.6209/2004 ON THE FILEKOF-._THE 2<;;;.wDL.=S'I»IAL..L
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER ME'i'ROPOL£TAN–»1AREA;'
BANGALORE {SCCH–16), PART=.,Y'» ALLOWING "IiI–II:: CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.&~.SEEKING« ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION. " "
THIS M.F.A. COMINGI IP03?’ BEFORE
THE COURT TH_i’S,__ DAY;V’N.E’.FA’TIL9′. DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING: I I
TIIIS direeted.–VVagainst the judgment and
award dated”17.”1.£5§fiiOO:5—;§as’sed in M.V.C.No. 6209 of 2004
on tklefile of .t.’rIex1VIOtOr Aecident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore
fj{‘£j_1aimSm;1″ribunaI’ for short). on the ground that
awarded by Claims Tribunal under the
_ heads patirrand Suffering, medical expenses, loss of future
Vahd loss of amenities and disability is inadequate
. a”I;1d”requires enhancemen .
counsel appearing for the parties, after appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence and other material 0u~ffil.e;~._vhas
awarded in all, a sum of Rs.l,39,200/- with
per annum from the date of petitior1»..till .
Claims Tribunal as against the claim The 2
appellant, being dissatisfied the
the Claims Tribunal, V has p.resee:1f1tedr_ this ‘appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation,
4. counsel for the
appellant * respondent-Insurance
Corilparié’.
counsel appearing for the appellant
“conterided that on account of the abovewmentioned injuries
appellant, she took treatment for four
e mor1ths,V_’vsltit§ eegrafting was done on her left leg and she has
K.”e”relstifferedupermaiflent disability. As a result of the same, she
he . ‘cam-‘:0’t walk fast and cannot do work as before. Moreover,
the Doctor has also opined that the appellant has suffered
,1
.1
disability to an extent of 25% to the whole body. ‘I’h_erefore,
he submitted that the amount awarded by the’~TI’ribuna1
under all the heads is inadequate and requires”inodifiéiaticti;,»
6. Per contra, learned Icou:n4se.1 is
respondentwlnsurance Company, ‘ “aha, , ‘
substantiated that, the award
passed by the and Hvproper and
interference by this Cou,rt–is 1 ”
7. ____ of the submission of
the learned. ‘t}{g…13arties, after thorough evaiuation
of the origiiiai ayailable on file threadbare, including
, the juijdgrrient and award passed by the Claims Tribunal, we
V”–__are”‘o.f the.,o;§i11ion that the Claims Tribunal is justified in
of Rs.25,000/~ towards medical expenses,
‘.Vattendarit. charges, conveyance and nourishing food and
A 8,000/– towards loss of income during treatment period.
C Hence, the same does not call for interference by this Court.
L
.x
,1
av
8. Further, it emerges from the impugned judgment
that the appellant was aged about 24 years as on the-date of
the accident and was a house wife. The accident “o7¢cu:iT.edg
in 2004. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal is? x
Rs.3,000/- as her monthly
the appellant has stated
appellant has suffered de.gl0ing”i:n}’uryr._onthe-.froht of ankle
and medical side of -‘._and deep fascia
cutting the minimal
contaminatiéjn fracture left foot.
If that ought to have taken
into agony, pain and suffering and
the duration’ .treat.Iner1t while awarding compensation
dtowardsi»-.’pai”n.A anddvsuffering. Taking into consideration the
and duration of treatment, we deem it fit
a to awardv’a:s;um of Rs.30,000/– towards pain and suffering
” ” against Rs.25,000/~.
9. Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding
compensation of only Rs.61,200/– towards loss of future
3′
_-A’
5- _
/’
10. Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding only
Rs.10.000/– loss of amenities. it is not in dispute the
Doctor has assessed the permanent disa1ji1’it3%..’_~p-.9}; :..the
appellant to an extent of 25% to the
also not in dispute that because.__of_’ithe grieVo’11s’l:inju;f_i.es ‘
sustained by her in the accident. the lappe}lVant’».h.£tis_.l3
treatment for four months. regard to the
nature of injuries, durationoi’. percentage of
disability suffered by-“‘ and also the
unhappiness. remain through out her
life. we :’are–_ -‘opinion that it is just and
proper to agwzavrd’ — as against Rs. 10.000/–
…..award«-eddy by the Tribunal. Accordingly, weaward
ll”.Rs.;2’0,VOO(Al/’: ‘tinder this head.
‘ ~. A’ -I lifi. of the discussion made above. we deem it
-fit to the total compensation from Rs.1.E-39,200/– to
V’ /– and the breakup is as follows:
;é.._….
5
12. in the light of the facts and circumstances of the
case, as stated above, the appeal filed by app.eli«aii.t is
allowed in part. The impugned judgment
by the Claims Tribunal dated’ _
M.v.c.No.62o9/2004 is modified
compensation of Rs.2,55.0(l0,(}~~. ._instheag1 V ~.;Rs.:.:£391,200/+tt
(enhancement being Rs;”3..,.l5,80E’r;.’tf3: intei’es§..~§flt the rate
of 6% per annum fromla till the date of
deposit. it it
The Company is
directedto”d’epositJthe eiihanceld”compensation with accrued
interest of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a of this jiidgment.
‘ .. of such sum by the insurance Company,
Tribunal is directed to deposit a sum of
in the name of the appellant in any
A itfationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years and
V’ appellant is entitled to Withdraw the interest accrued
‘4 thereon quarterly.
E0
The remaining amount of Rs.35,800/~» with aeerued
interest shali be released in favour of the
forthwith .
Draw up the award accordingisr. j;
IUDGE
KGR*