IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
BEFORE A
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE
M. F. A. NO. 14555yoFp2oo7E'AgMV?}
BETWEEN :
Shri. Babu,
S/0. Rasheed.
Aged about 29 years.
No.22, 151 Cross', _
Sidhartha Colony,' ' ''
Madiwala. V A '
Balqgalomof 58.
V' Appellant
($5: $11 B. Sateesh Adv.)
Al;
V' .1. "Xav1e"r"Jo's'eph.
._ i\/_vIajo1".,"~«.
A 1_2"{§1 Cross.
A " '--..T'Mari1thiy;;Nagar,
Madiwala Extension.
A i3a.1j1ga1ore W 68.
{Q.\:(me1' of Maxi Cab
" '*~..._No.KAwO5 D~2217}
' A A IFFCO W Tokio General Insurance
Company Limited,
3"' Floor, St:ra'i,egi(: BL1sint:sS Unit.
Ix.)
K.S.C.M.F. Building.
No.8, 3*" Block.
Cu nninghani Road.
Bangalore -- 51. __
. Resfpi'3»ndents
[By Sri. S. Srishaila. Adv. for R2}
=l<=li=>i¢*
This MFA is filed U/S 173[l"}"of'_i\2§V sasgsissi,mes%
Judgment and award dated 08,408:,'2O-O7'sspassedfi.n"es::i'y«lVC =
No.6"/'6/2006 on the file : of Judge. EVIACT,
Bangalore, SCCH~9, partly"ailQwing~..the C"Iall3.:".i'~~P(§ti~[lOH -for
compensation and seeking enh«anieemerI*t._fors cziorripensation.
This appeal e0mir:g'~o_n day the Court
made the following: " '
listed today for admission by
Consent 0fi1ed.Ady'o'e,a"t.es the Inatte1' is taken up for final
,Vheas;'ii«3.g:sine.e it hi'sio.f_.ii.1r:e year 2007.
' -V in this appeal is --seels;ing enhancement
Of.'tlfl'(i*'COf1}'t,§:-iéflléseliioll. not being satisfied with what has been
'uawarded"'=;hyV the Tribunal by its judgment. and award dated
is§issA,s'§l2oo7 passed in MVC No.676/2006.
Kg.)
3. The facts in nut shell are as follows:
On 13-1142005 the accident in question ha1sty"octturred
while the appellant was crossing the road as at
which point" of time a maxi cab dashed agai11s't...h'i--rn' resu'l'ticng"__
in claimant suffering injuries. O11.ylۤc(:oun"t:-._of'-the__said~.._ 4_j
injuries sustained the clayimant. llfi.led
petition claiming a total On
service of notice bet'ore;:--..the respondent.
Insurance Company of objections and
contended responsible for the
a(:cide11.£1VVtll contributed to the accident
to an elxtelnt ‘(it’ll accord1’11§§l)/ lontended that
I’€SpQI.1lClfi3.l1l. No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. The first
respondeA11t.4ow11er of the vehicle in question had remained
eX?p.a1″te.«l”_’-._Th;e”‘.Tribunal on considering the evidence on
V . recorcl pleadings by its judgment a.nd award dated
has held that accident in question had occurred
— on account of driver of the oflending vehicle and claimant
was not responsible for the same and awarded a
cornpensation of Rs.35.OOO/M under the following heads:
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.
2. Medical Expenses ” b
La
3. Incidental Expenses
4. Loss oflncome during
treatment * ‘ . U
5. Amenities in;-‘ft.1turei””‘ Rs; “-10;l)OO/–
Total’ ll _:.”jiwRs.. 35.ooo/-
It is this axara.rdfw_hiCl1_ has assailed in the present
4. shave F1″eard”‘-Sri. V.Srini\/as. learned counsel for
theappellant S.Srishaila._ learned counsel for the
resplendent-.I-Noticte to R1 has been dispensed with by this
by:lo»r_d’e,r’Jdateci 28-1-2010 as he had been placed ex
-V partée belforelllthe Court below.
‘ the following points arise for my consideration:
is Having heard the learned counsel for the parties.
a»
{i) Whether the compensatiori awarded by the
Tribunal is just: and reasonable or whether it
requires modification/enhanceme1c1t?x’=_:i’f._ to
what extent’?
{ii} To What. order’?
6. Having heard the learned:~coiJn’Sel,fo-rltheyparties”–
and having perused the judgrr__ient,”
observed that as per l$x.P.8 the claimant
had been admitted to for a period of
two days whichvhuas in the discharge
stimmary _EI>{.’l3.;9..__V’Fro:n’the.wound certificate it is seen that
petitioneruhas sLivstai;ried”~–o’ne grievous injury and no doctor
hasl;§een.eXan’iin_e’d’ tovsay that on account of such injury the
t:ia.irhar_it:has«–._sL1’l’i’ercd any permanent disability. it is only
the’Sayof”_t;he~ciaimant that on account of the said injury his
. movements’ are restricted which has resulted in reduction of
vi.hisvcsearri”1ng capacity. Considering the nature of injury as
-‘ ir1 EXIPK8 and also the medical bills produced
“co11.ect,i”vely at §x.P.lO. I am of the view that. the
6
compensation awarded under the head pain and suffering is
required to be enhanced marginally by awarding
Rs.l0,000/– in addition to what has been the
Tribunal. Accordingly it is so awarded.
7. Admittedly the c:laiman’t”‘was& for
about two days in Kaveri Nursing :i*_l_ori1_e. has:i:.s–~of”the
discharge summary certificate=,€x..P.9. awarded
medical expenses at –‘ is onthe lower side
since the injury sustainedhfifig g1fVi”eirj(3.a,;s in nature and
conside1*iir’1g.,yythe ri’a;t’11rc.»0f ii1jur*y”‘a11d also the medical bills
produced at also requires to be enhanced
by grantlnlg”–«addditio_nalssurn of Rs.2,500/- and accordingly an
suArn’vef~’Rs.2,5OO/» under the head medical
Lexplense-s_”is”awarded. Since the claimant, was an inpatient
for days and was attended to by his family
‘V.,mcrnbers’:. under the head food and nourishment. diet
and attendant charges a sum of Rs.2,E300/~ is
awarded since no amount was awarded by Tribunal. Thus
42/
the additional amount of Rs.15.O0O/W is awarded under
these three headings above referred to. The eiboi/ef”arr1ouI1t
awarded was in addition to what has been
Tribunal. The said enhanced con1pens«ati’on_vVsh’-all also carryj
interest at 6% pa from the datendiof .,ti1~l_ ‘A
payment.
8. In Vi€W of th–rfiabo’f(e 1fi_h.e’fo’il.io’wing order is passed:
\
The part enhancing the
compensationm an additional amount of
Rs.I5.000/Q35″oi*dered.’he’r’e_in«above and the said enhanced
compensaL~»ior1 sha1AI”a’;isoV’carry interest at 6% per annum
ofpetitiond till the date of payment. Since the
e11hia.neierrient–«.o1″d’ered is marginal no order for deposit is
made. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
FUDGE