IN THE HIGH coum" OF KARNA TA KA A T BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K,p,m;e % T L
AND
THE I-ION'BLE 1!fl2.;.IUSTfCE ' I-I. BIfi;APE'A A %'
M.F.A.No. 7081 20o7<{m:i*
Between R K
1 Sri Masood Server '- _
S/o Syedfihamed ~
Aged 3?'Yea":'s, ,_
No.48/-9, ?i;jst._v_Cr-as-s 'V ._ V
K.H5Ran'gafiat11a 'Cfo}.o"1'1y__.
Bangaiomtsso 3
APPELLANT
(By N R 'Na1i§j'~&'As:é;oc:ates, Advocates}
And_:_
V' _ 2'1-kfiway Fo'i9war"ders Pvt Ltd
No.19/._1, Sn' Venaktadri
_ 'vtlfiniyappa Layout,
. V'Eio12ena'A'.grahara Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore 560 017
2 ~ tionai Insurance Co Ltd
Regional Office No.144,
A Subbaram Complex,
M.G.Road,
Bangalore 1.
Respondents
” [Rd Served; Sri: Vishwanath S Shettar, Advocate for R2 )
This M.F.A. is filed U/8.1730) of MV Act against the
Judgment 8: Award dated 1/ 2/ 2007 passed In MVC
No.T941/O5 on the file of the XVI Addl Judge, MACT,
Metropolitan Area, Bangalore {SCCH.14], partly allowing the
Claim Petition for compensation & seeking enhancement of
compensation. ”
This M.F.A. coming on for ADMISSIOi.\_i_ V’
PATIL J, delivered the following:
:JUDG M[;:’iN:Zif:;’~’lV
This appeai is directed:vg””against the and-it
award dated 15′ F3-§luaryVA..——«x.’20Ci7_ p”assed..:§ in MVC
No.7941/2005 by the Judge and
Motor Accidents VVBa.nVoalore, SCCH-14,
(hereiVnatte’ro’reterre5d’to_l:as.:’fC|ainisfliiribunal’ for short).
Bygthe._ii’n_ptilgnedi«judgment and award, the Claims
Tribunagl has awa.r’ded’-aisum of Rs.2,34,000/- with interest at
– ‘~ 6% {p.a;-, from thevdadte of petition till the date of realisation.
by that, appellant has filed this appeal,
se-eking elnhalncement on the ground that, the Claims Tribunal
has not awarded any amount towards loss of future income.
3. The appellant claims that he is aged about 36
V. -3/ears, by profession he is a Doctor and running two ciinics.
That on 6.10.2005 at out 11.30 a.m., the appellant was
~IIr”‘*”‘”””””””””°”””””
documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in
part and awarded a sum Rs.2,34,000/- as conipe’rl.sat,ion
under different heads with interest at 6% p.a., from
petition till the date of realization. Begingi
said judgment and award, the appelia.Ant’lVhas–
appeal, seeking enhanceme–E1,,f”‘~~..,0f ‘compeAnsatieVn;’lllon then
ground that the Claims ‘net awarded any amount
towards loss of future inlcomell’ be awarded.
4. Thegvpriiineiypal;:ls’ubr*rtlssi:on,l”canvassed by the learned
counsel that,” the Claims Tribunal
has a:rl¥g:.;erro~r.VgiV’nV’notawarding any amount towards
loss ofgfuturevnheeds to be awarded. He also
subrnittedthatv, profession, the appellant is a Doctor and
r,unnin’g’vv–two clinics and getting the income of
:to*–.20,000/- per month. The said claim of the
been rejected by the Claims Tribunal stating
that, per the evidence of the Doctor, the fractures are
A properly united and therefore, the question of awarding any
amount towards loss of future income does not arises and
which is contrary to the evidence of PW3. Therefore, he
7. The Claims Tribunal has rejected the ciai_m__ of the
appellant towards loss of future income, stating thajt’:’vtih’e:hi.the
fractures are properly united as per the evidence of
uestion of awardin com ensation»~towardsv,ioss Vofjfiutyitire f ‘
Ci 9 P . . . . . .
earnings does not arise. The said reasonirig’ gi,ven’Qby,iVt’l*.eV
Claims Tribunal for reiectinVg»;i’«.t:h’e.claini~._of appel’iant for
future loss of income cannot &b’e’Vau_:siained and”i*tt isiiable to be
set aside at thresho|d.ll”ltéis’ here itself that,
the Doctor occupation, nature
of injury, radiological, sonological
examinat–ion,i’aliirni6t;os r’ttair’iual, ‘hczsiassessed the disability of the
appellant :of.’t4he:_:i:’njIiries sustained at 25% to lower limb
and 10°/e”io_.tlie liver laceration 30% disability; chest
ifij,lliiy and lung’ contention 12% disability. Further, the Doctor has
‘stated_v.’that.:;iii..Vview of the chest injury, the appellant should be
.g’iiJ’_en Ci_iestviv.1’-‘physiotherapy and he has to consult chest
ph”ysioi.an.-V iiurther, the Doctor has stated that, appeliant is a
..A,yurvedi’c Medical Practitioner and with the above disabilities, it is
‘ ‘t~,diiiio’ult for him to practice his profession. Taking all these relevant
= »..–factors into consideration, we can safely take the disability of the
appellant at 20% to the whole body. Further, it is the case of the
appellant that he was earning Rs.i5,000/ to 20,000/~ per
month by running clinics. But he has not produefed:y”‘-aény
documents to establish that he was
2o,o0o/- per month. Therefore, keepingin vi’e.w’Vih’ei.r3ii5pe”i§ianr._Vie’ir .0
an Ayurvedic Medicai Practitioner, we 1’_’tai<e
appellant at Fis.5,000/ per mont_h;'–._The'avppeil.anti.was:'aged; about'
36 years and the appropriate muitiiplyier will be.'15«.i_ income of
the appellant is taken with disability at
20% to the whoie bozziyiw-anci»th'e.V rnuitipiier of 15 is
applied, of::'futu_r_exincojmeiicomes to Rs. 1,8o,o00/-
(5000 we award a sum of
Fist ‘l<os's…oi.future income.
0. v.._yjThe’ ..4′:co.pmpensation payable comes to
i=ze,gi,r.a.,ooo– teed the break- up is as follows:
it pain and sufferings Rs. 45,000/-
_ Toward.s’~l.os*s of income during
” ._ the*p”er_iodtv’o’i treatment Rs. 10,000/~
iTowar€is._niedical expenses Rs. ‘i,49,000/–
4 “Toward”:”conveyance, nourishing
feod’:.& attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
.5. Towards loss of
amenities of life Rs. 25,000/-
0 ‘-m6;~Tewards loss of future income Rs. 1,80,000/-
Total Fis.4,14,000/–
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and theimpugned
judgment and award passed by the Claims Ttt,biLtaatll,;:<g;ii two
No.7941/2005 stands modified, granting a
Rs.4,t4,000/– instead of Rs.2,3,4,00Ul'» 7.
Rs.1,80,000–) with interest at 6°/o'1'p,a;*,._fzrom tgihedate of-tjetittontg
till the date of realisation. .
The insurance company.tsdttected.to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount \it}i’th__irttetest,t’ tfsgeeks from the date
of receipt of the cooy of:this”jt,:,atgtften’1;’__V ~ 2 hi it
The d:’–.r”ected__touidisburse the enhanced
compensation.’a*mt}l,tttt’, appellant, immediately, on
depostt by theln’eurartr:e’Cornpany.
Dra,wtLt,pvthe av«atv’d,af:cordrngly.
JUDGE
Sd/1.
EUDGE
ten’-..__