High Court Karnataka High Court

Boramma vs The United India Insurance Co Ltd on 7 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Boramma vs The United India Insurance Co Ltd on 7 September, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE PHGH CGURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE

mm}: ms mm om my on saprszxmm, 2010 

BEFQRE

um mxma nm..1us'mc2 3.smEHNAsEc<33a¥nAj  { T

M.F.A. NO.10061/2OCa <8   %  

§ 

Bfliij

D[O'I'HIFPAIAH

AGEII)ABOUT22Y'EA.RS
maruvnmmmsam  
cHALmmRE'1:A.LUx   V
cmrmnuxmnmr   f

(BY am B n   

1.

mm umrmn mum £Ef3U,:RA1ECE co urn
BY rm xmmcn
” nmmonna hm’
FI?£xI}E§I-I

. f2. %%;a€5m.ar>n¢ 310 Nmmvnrmt
new

% ” rmmaoxma am aw.)

V “‘ – -» mamm smvnmmza. ms R1)

k % DRIVER opmgmr so. AP-11[T–7146
22.10 nmrarnauna

REEPOHDENPB

mm: we ms (1) on w ACT’ Ammsr ms

mm Amm mama: a.9.2eos msasn m mmmo.
‘iomao-2 mm mm mm 09 mm cmz. mms (s1a.1:m.3,
“c , PARTLY ALLO’WI1WG mm cum pmnwxon ma

,

2

comsmanox mm smxme maancsnmm . jay

CO%EH8aA’i’IOK”?

mm mm comm on ma T ,

mm mm, TKE mum nmmvmnmn Tm m1,ypwmt}:4~” *

This mpeax in by the claim’ §:r%%

compexmwmn mww&d by the

2. Far the am of we referred
to as they are refit?i’!%it§«; f:a hefora me

‘I’n’bm:m1.

3. %

On wm walking an the mud
m¢:__at bus stand, a lorry taming
cm: in a rash md nmgent

1: her. as a result, she fell chum md

v am.:_:1Va’issi;11ed ‘jirlenoe, aha mad at zslaim pefitisn befiem the

mmg aompemaaan of m.2,35,om/.. The

an a. cmpennuzm af na.1,o1.em/– with

‘ mm: at 5%p.a.

HE:

4. As there 3 no dispute $135133 accunenm act’
accident, negliynce mil liability of the insurer of the

vehicle, the only paint that mine: fiar my cemié:ra:u’;:efi ”

appealk:

‘whether than comxzenaafion iv
Tribunal 5 just mad mmonahlse it n V’

enhmoemenf?”

5. Aflaer hearing the the
paruiea mad perusing thq judgmg¢;§tt§ffia Tribunal, I
am afthsa View that the Tribunal
is not just it Iiower aide md hanoe it is

requm-..-‘ dtobe

A’ sustaimd fracture af rhht leg
lowe i’ sustained by the claimam-. am evidem-.
me may-4 & 9, disability certificate
x.m Em?-11, 12 a 15 and sup-portad by oral

clwant mad doctor, who were exmitmé. m

had 2 respectively. PW–2.. medical Oficcr wha treaiaed

– _ ‘V f an mmatien hm stated that

a) swellingwserthe bwar 1/31″ efrightlm
2:) Cut Fmjmy in rwtfosm am: an the mimzrior spent.

as

Aftaer reeehring thy: report from the 3’51: ”

Shin-admga, the medical afieer 11$ wind that tlzg _

sustained bi-maiiwlnr mm of rim: 3;
namm. And he has stated there is _d5a%awa:y%%e:

the limb. % j

7. Gcmsidering the ‘ 1?:s*;3:::V:,,eoo;.

aewardcc! by the Tribunal is just. and

proper and them is :19 11153 head.

a. hm for EJ2691-

and the of injuries has rightly

awarded an gum of ‘xnefical exp-amm’ and «

thefé far. under this head.

was txeated an; inpatient far a pericd of

mo1itt:4_VfiuxsaV_,~ ;§.;’§..G1 ta 9.31:1 in chm-amuga I~Iospa1a1′ .

duration cf Izeatnxent, &.3,000[- awarded by

V ‘cameeymce, neuflalmnent and attendant

cm the laws: side md R ‘a deserved to be enhmmed

fiiother 1%.12,000/~ and I award $35,000/~ mam’ this

head. %/

10. The claiznant is a minor girl mad about %

the me azaf accident. Gnnsififing thm am Wm _
her pmanta dm-‘mg her tmatzzwrzt
wurk, it is just and proper to award

trrwna ‘lass afisnmme of the flip find

11. Oonsidcdngflfae dam: and
an «meant cf law to
undexw in by the ‘I’ril3unal
‘has of towards ‘loss of masrrim
prospectus’ is mme Jfimd it a deserved be be
anhgnmd I}. inwards ‘has of menifias

méi .

12. A’ wt *3 2 minor, quastion of awand.tng’
‘ the head ‘has of future bacomef does not

a mm of m.s~o,om/~ awarded by the Tribunal

cmamm* is ham: an the disabimy stained

%. fifiévdfictor and there 5 m scape fir anhmcement under 2123

heazi. .53;

6

13. PW-2, the doctor has stated thm the

nperated with fixatinn of implmm. themine

1:2s.1a,ooo/– is awarded mwarda mmmmemcsé ”

removal :31?’ implanm.

14. ‘mus, the dam’ mt is ‘éfifithd f£:1~ _ ream}
::am.pe:mafian:- ‘ R

a) Pain md «nae:-bags _ : ”r%¢ja3%;–3o,ceo

b) Medical expmm * % ~,£és.5,000

0) Conveyance, ‘V

and . – $15,000
:1)

Minx» , ‘ ~Rs.6.o0e

e) lnsucyfatnénities 1 «$325,000
Q Future ‘medical — $10,000

– m.1,41,mc:

_–.u«~»~»——–_u m m o — — —

appeal is allowed in part. The

Vjudmeni by the Tribunal in moemed to the
gxgmtkamma ahove.’1h:: claimant ‘ma entitled for a. total
of m1,4:.,coe/- as against m.1,m,aoo/–

the ‘I?rfi>una1 with intemat at 5% 33.3. on that:
eompannation of m.4o,ooo;~ from the date of exam

mam am afmaxmzaon.

35′”

7
3.6. Th: msumxzce Company 3 directed ho

enhanced mmpensmcm ammmt taoyther with ,,

two months finm the date afxecemt ufa copy ofthia ” 1

1?. Out of the enhmaad

with pnaportzkvnate intaereat E ordcrcd

dgposit in the name of
Banlcischechfleed Bank/Post «re:-*% 6 years
mnerwable ones in 3 years; $ AV __ -% with’
pmparfionate iz1ha1u*.;.. is fmur of the
claimant

18. H<_:_vorci§r-.a3 an

Sdfi.

Jud?