IN THE HIGH COURT 01+' KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 4?}! DAY OF NOVEMBE_R',:D'2G1_'Q--:: E _
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUsT1CEj%J§SK§I?ATI:i; A
AND'
THE HON'I-BLE MR.JUsTfGE I1,s.I{EMPA;§NA
M. F.A.I\'TC}f 1 1-9933 /"2*aG5{rxm
BETWEEN: '
AKBAR PASHA @}fjAG'":1<___::s" J
s/0 JABBAR .
AGED ABOUT 2G«1Y_EAF§S,_"~ ~--
NALABANUAVADI,'Ij0LD' ~.._Gwr~I,_ '
MANDYA CITY _» APPELLANT
(BY sR1.N;R.G1RIsfLAg 3
_ L ._ ..... ..
- "W/'Q KALEGOWDA,
.
I s0LLEPUF;A VILLAGE,
TQ.,
MANDYA DISTRICT
2 A. A2; BRANCH MANAGER,
V' ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP. TO KPTCL. M.C.ROAD,
MANDYA . . .RESPONDENTS
(BY SRl.V.NARAYANASWA}\/{Y - ADV. FOR R-2,
R-1 SERVED AND UEWREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
2
22.09.2005 PASSED IN MVC NO.62/2004 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE {SR.DN.) <31 CJM & MACT, MANDYA.
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL
THIS DAY. N.K.PATIL J., DELEVERED THE FOLLQWI.i\lCi.:f - up
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the (:lairr1ar;.1JtGACiVs’_ti’ire’e_teic’i
impugned judgment and award dated 22.{):!!.;2’O:05
in MVC No.62/2004 on theGV’Vi’fi.yie’ of the Judge
{Sr.aDn.} 8: CJM & 1. [ne1*einafter referred to
as ‘the Tribunal’ for sh_o_rt}_._ ‘C A
By and award, the Tribunal has
awardedratlsurrr_oi5i’.i’4;’3.;~70O/– with interest at 6% p.a.
froth the date”–0:f_Pf§t.ition till realisation as against the
» vielainz.vrn.adVe”‘–b_y the appellant for a sum of ?7,63,400/~
‘On’~aceVour1–t’the injuries sustained by him in the road
tra4ffi.CV”‘aCoident. Being aggrieved by the said judgment
0’ Gianni ayvard, the appellant has presented this appeal
seeking enhancement on the ground that, the amount
0 awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.
3. In brief, the fags of the case are as follows :
If
E
3
The appellant claims to be aged about 19 years,
working as Assistant in Gurjari shop, getting salary of
?2100/– p.I’I1. He was hale and healthy prior ‘tloiegthe
accident. That, at about 9 pm. on 7
was proceeding in a Hero puch Vehicle~be:arir1g: Regri.~..
No.KA.O2/K/ 8582, as a pillion
Kantha, slowly and cautiously, ontiie
road from Kaiikamba temple-.,:_toyvards«.,l$E’andia circle,
near over bridge, tractor bearing
Regn.No.KA.i its driver in
high lspeedll negligent manner, came from
Nandalcircle the Hero puch. Due to
Whi_fclh,zthe fell down and sustained injuries
_Vas.gfraeture of right thigh, injury to the left knee,
fight ttgtit forearm, forehead, left rib and other
parts the body. Immediately, he was admitted to
Cte-nerai hospital, Mandya, where he has taken
lltreatnient for about 40 days as inpatient and undergone
Wtwo surgeries. The doctor has assessed the physical
disability at 50%. Or1e~third of it would be 16.66%
rounded of to 17% towards whole body disability. It is
2446,
the further case of the appellant that due to the injuries
sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered»-.1_ot of
pain and suffering and spent considerable
towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourisiiing
and attendant charges. He has ;to”Vst1’f3Fer’–.pth.e
and unhappiness caused
throughout his life. Further,:VV”‘he his
duties so effectively. future’ earnings
also. Taking all theseVfaetors,’itheappeiiatnt filed a claim
petition bef_oi’e’:Lthe compensation
against The said ciaim petition had
come for ctoiasidverationttbefore the Tribunal, which in
after both sides and after assessing the
-documentary evidence, has allowed the said
part and awarded a sum of ?-43,700/-
as.u’co1npensation under different heads with interest at
F5′?/*’-t-‘._ from the date of petition till the date of
Airetaiisation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
“award, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking
enhancement of compensation.
X) _
f, ……..__.,…aHsw…s.._.m…u_…
1
5
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the second
respondent–insurer.
5. After careful perusal of the material availabieplon
record and the impugned judgement and
emerges is that, the ‘i’ribunalj’has” awfarded’
reasonable compensation towards medical’, _ex’pvense.s;–~ as . 2
per the medical bills produced by the andll
therefore, we do not ‘i1iterferel_with the same. However,
the Tribunal has not reasonable
comp7ensatio’r:’.t.a_w’ards_apa,in and sufferings, conveyance.
nourishing» food “ar1dv.””attendant charges and ioss of
incorne. duringplilaidi up period. Further, it has not
. awaifled any compensation towards loss of amenities,
‘ ‘discon1forts”a’nd unhappiness and loss of future income.
There’vis”no dispute regarding the Occurrence of the
Apaccident, the negligence of the driver of the vehicle.
Aplrelslultant injuries and the treatment taken as inpatient
‘Min the hospital and the surgeries underwent by the
appellant. Further, there is also no dispute regarding
the occupation and the income of the appellant. The
r4
,r “H-‘”~*~—-~««r——«%.s._..
6
appellant has taken treatment for a period of 40 days
and the doctor has assessed the physical disability at
50% and if one–third of it is taken, the whoglemlbody
disability comes to 16.66%, rounded of _
presume that he might have talten V.
and bed rest for a period of four
have undergone pain and ag’o.ny and ‘spent:’considerable.it*
amount towards conveyance-,»,_ nourishing food and
attendant charges tireatinent period and on
account of the”injuries”and he_”rr_1ay’. ngotxbe in a position
to discharge effectively as he was Carrying
out priorfllto the The appellant has to suffer
th,e_seV discornforts throughout his life. However, these
» :aspectsA«.o–f:the matter have neither been looked into by
H nor considered nor awarded just and
reasonable compensation.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
lithe case as stated above, we deem it proper to award
‘H?3O,0O0/~– towards pain and sufferings as against
?’20,000/–, 210,000/– towards conveyance, nourishing
food and attendant charges, ?8,400/– (32,100 X 4
W..dumm_,_c,_,_,
t’
7
months) towards loss of income during treatment period
as against ‘€2,000/-. We award ?20.000/– towards loss
of amenities, discomforts and unhappiness. ThVei’,:.’1O’£’rhole
body disability, as discussed earlier, is asses.se’d..at.
The appellant was aged about 19 ..
appropriate multiplier appiicahle
Verma’s case (2009 ACJ 1.29.3). Henée, Vwe’v:’re§d.eter?r11’ine:’:;
the compensation towards___4_loss -of fritnre’ income on
account of the clisabimg’ (32100 x 12 x 18 x
17/ 100). We award future medical
expenses. — if it
facts and circumstances of
thpejicase, the’ impugned judgment and award passed by
is modified and the break–up is as follows:-
sufferings ? 30,000/–~
Towards medica} expenses %’ 19,700/–
z
= V’I’ow’ards Ioss of income during
Laidmup period ? 8400/”
it “Towards loss of amenities ? 20,000 / –
Towards loss of future income ?’ 77,112/–
Towards future medical expenses ? 10,000/-
Total ?’ 1,’7’5,212/-
%
7′. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in paf£:–._a3:1d
the impugned judgment and award
Tribunai in MVC No.62./2004 stands modified’. ajwé:~di:ig_é
a compensation of ?’1,’75,212/;¥h
awarded by the Tribunal enhanced
comes to $1,131,512/– 6;:/£3 p.a.
from the date of the
The second directed to
deposit the H ,3 1,512/– with
interest at date of petition till the date
of realisationtdwithiin from the date of receipt
of copy of judgment and award.
‘A ‘ V. the enhanced compensation of ?1,31,512/–
— with proportionate interest shall
in Fixed Deposit :11 any Nationalized or
SC’heCh:§ied bank, in the name of the appellant for a
period of five years renewabie by another five years, with
Vwltiberty to him to witzhdraw the interest accrued on it,
periedically.
/
The remaining sum of €31,512/-
proportionate interest shall be released in
appellant, immediately, on deposit by .
Office to draw the award, 4' '
, S&$4
L ll "'
e Fud9v
FS