IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31%» DAY or NOVEMBER. 2910
BEFORE T 'T
THE HoN=gL}:«: MR. JUSTICE B.sREENNAé=E'
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.~ 8083' " = ,
BETWEEN M "
Anitha V V _ V
D/0. Late Shivannagowda " ;.
Aged 23 Years
C/0. Puttegowda V. . V
No.25. 181 Cross, MEI Cqiohgfv
Laggare Main Road V
Laggare» , A %
Barlgalore , ..
,"{"E%3§r' S:¢.iV§.v_S1'i::ffi4i3a.:§§1*\aV(f"Sh.§i'St'i'iq Adv.)
1. A.-The V .
M75. Oriénta_}___Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Srinivasa Mansion,
1\¥_o;~3't'34$"/' 1_, 10-13 Main
~ III jBv10r:i.i;V, Jayanagar,
Baxigalere -- 11'".
2. ..Sri;. Tarunkumar Biswas,
S/0. Narayanachandra Biswas,
AA No.1869, 423'; Cross,
8* Main Road, 411* T Block,
Jayanagar,
Bangalore.
Respondents
{By Sri. C R Ravishankar, Adv. for R. 1,
R2 — notice dispensed with V/o. dated 24.08.2010}
This MFA is filed U /s 173(1) of MV Act the
Judgment and award dated: 10.4.2008 passe.r:1’_;i.if1′
No. 6617/2006 on the file of the Judge, C.o’urtAofv:.Smfa3.}
Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Ar_ea_:.’».Ba.1figaior’e,..’V
{SCCI-«I.No.9), partly allowing V.-the-..cla’im_ petition}. for ‘
compensation and seeking Z…ger1hanr;e’mer1t__ 01’
Compensation. ” ‘~ C’
This appeal comingdorirfor Hearing. the
Court, delivered the fo11owing:”u__
Jun (“;-._1
This by –:.»t11e« Challenging the
award on the ground of
negliggenee’ weiil has tquantttln of compensation.
2. ‘–Heard. ” t ‘
3. Fo’r._the Sakeiof convenience parties are referred to
a_;,~.§;hVey are V.r’efe1jr_egd to in the eiaim petition before the
‘ ,.T1’ibu_rV1’a}; ‘ V ._
‘ “Br_i;e__f of the case are:
z on 19~9~06, when the claimant was crossing
2 AA }:3a.nnerghatta road at Huhmavu gate, opposite to bus
gig.
stand, to go to garment factory, a motor bike -« Hero
Honda Splendour bearing registration No.
KA–O5-EC~2436 came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against her. As a result, the c1ai.:rianr_i’fe11
down and sustained injuries. Hence, she.–‘ii–1edcAga-ciaiin
petition before the MACT Bang-fa1’ore’;.–VIi” ddscekingdddd
compensation of 33,50,000/iii.’
impugned judgment ‘
compensation of ?.V3S3’,4O8/5 6% p.a.
Aggrieved by the quanturn ‘of”VicoII_1.pensation awarded by
the Tribunai”‘«igthe appeal seeking
enha;_ncerne’n5t_.,of V
5. ‘i”hVere._ is no regarding injury sustained by
thegolaimantg in’ a ‘road traffic accident occurred on
dispute is Whether the claimant
a-iso,Vg»V_co.’ntributed for the accident at 20%, as has
been h”e1dA«by the Tribunal and whether the quantum of
A.cOrnpén.sation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
“‘..pro’per or does it call for enhancement’?
‘$3’
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties
and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the
View that the finding of the Tribunal that claimant had
contributed 20% for the accident is not just and proper
and E hold. the accident was occurred
negligence on the part of the ridcrpf it
and quantum of compensation. awarded yvgustfarici
reasonable and it does not for elnhan ce-:r1e~n’t’;’
After the accident, ,th’c…lPo’l’ice haVev..re.g’istered a
case against the rider Vlohf’th.e.”¥’c:ifendii1.g”‘motor cycle and
after investigation, against the
ride1§r._pf appears to have pleaded
guilty befo.re..thc_cri1i1i:nial Court. Even the spot sketch
of:i2he__placVciden’tA-shows it is a double road and there is
‘ .».div:ide1fV.”~ Cla’in1ant after getting down from the bus was
‘proceedingV..5’from West to East to attend duty in a
garment ‘factory. She had almost reached the divider.
rider of the motor cycle who was proceeding from
‘South to North, appears to have taken right turn
suddenly and caused the accident. The insurer who
6:’
contends, claimant had contributed for the accident at
20% did not choose to examine the rider of the
offending vehicle. Whereas, the claimant hasrjdeposed
before the Tribunal that she was crossihgg
carefully and cautiously, and the”ac-side-_ht it
due to rash and negligent riding’
by its rider. Therefore, that»
claimant had contributed at 2(2)”/o is not
just and proper and it of oral and
documentary’ ‘ l A the accident was
occurredildulevh the part of the rider
of the V l ‘ ‘
8. Novsfll x”r1_ave” see Whether quantum of
c_ornper1sation””awarded by the Tribunal is just and
‘ .»reasonVab_l’e:or_ does it call for enhancement.
9% .–.As~}5er wound certificate — Ex.l3.5, the claimant
it has sustained the following injuries :
Right temporal contusion with subarachnoid
haemorrhage, which is grievous in nature.
injuries sustained by her are also supported by
her era} evidence examined as P.W.1. She has not
examined the doctor regarding disability.
10. Considering the nature of injur_i.ee»,…
awarded by the Tribunal towafdsi ;-is
just and proper and there’is«–_.r_;o seope for’eii.ha;jiee_:nent_VV: >
under this head.
1 1. As ?. 4.260/– mraeaeiiby ‘..t_3:ie.’.:’Vf1;;*ibunal towards
medical is:=._as::p;er inedieai_:.§’bi1is predueed by
the same is just and
proper and “t..b_.e2jei7ere.4’it. does not call for enhancement.
12. as inpatient from 19–9~06 to
t__f01-‘V a”«p.e__ried of 6 days in St.John’s Medical
Bangalore. Considering the same,
by the ‘i’rib’2.1na1 -tewarids incidental
expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and’
“it charges is just and preper and there is no
‘ K scape for enhancement under this head.
%”
13. Even though doctor is not examined regarding
disability. the Tribunal considering the riature of
injuries indicated in the wound certificate. has _a’w4ard’eAd
$25,000/– towards loss of amenities which
on the higher side and thereforeflt. does require
enhancement.
14. Claimant after continued
her employment in garilnerith there is no loss
of employmeritr Z’? of awarding
compensation’ income does not
arise._.- _ M
15. the awarded by the Tribunal is
more than entitlement. there is no scope for
” .enhafieerrient.
appeal is allowed in part, only in so
far aslthe negligence is concerned and it is held that the
.accident was occurred due to sole negligence on the
‘part of the rider of the motor cycle and insurer is liable
fif
to pay the entire compensation awarded by the Tribunal
with interest as has been awarded by the ‘I’ribuna1__._
N0 order as to costs.
mgn*