U : 3}’ ‘ ‘~- . . . . . .. ‘V
V;{ ?fi@.©rié$tai~lnsu:ance C0. Lt§.,
“‘,2;”Aggarwal Hemender K.,
‘=.-NC.218, Em C5053,
ZN Tfii HEGH CGURT G? KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
§a?£a THIS $33 23” may SF MARCH, 239%
PRESENT:
Amy
THE HGN’8L€ MR. SUSTICE $.s[“§§cHHA9ué£_,””
MISCELLANEQES FIRST APPEEL Ne;2?16 Q; gggg ig§;”%’
BETWEEN:
Asma, ‘*,j- g
fife. Zqbal sha;ief;:.
Aged 32 Y%afsr,”.””t
No.59, 5″ c:ggs,;
R. T _ ” ‘I .»::::” .
Ba§galGre~32{‘? ‘«W ,4k _– … A??ELLANT/S
{By Smt{vSreevidfifia,G:$},* fer
Sr}. T,N;Viswanatha; Ad¥.]
*»By~1ts B:afich»managex,
mo;232/;9,’§m Main,
Fayithra $buth Avenue,
EEK Black; Jayanagar,
‘»,Bang3ioke.
Sic. K.L.Aggarwai,
113 Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore~11. … RE$PQND€NT/S
.1.
{By 33:. S.V.Hegde Muikhand, Adv. fer RE.
351. K.N.Ravikumar, Edv. far R2.; i///,
Cla:fi3ntWfiae*@akking carefuiiy on the left side cf
*Lu_ Sedaseiyeneeer, frem south to norih, Meruti Car
‘e,’§earing %eq. N0.CKW 1251 ériven in a rash and
.fie§@fi§ent manner by its driver came from behind ané
~j§aghea the claimant. On account cf the said
‘accident, she fell dewn and sustained grievees
2 MFA N©.27Z6/04
This MFA is filed ufSec.1?3{§§ of MV” fiat
against the Judgment and Award éated 2?.1G.Q3 pegged
in MVC %o.3326f§@ on tee file cf the Ex Addl,wI&§ge,
Member, MACT~?, Cour? of Small Causes, Bengal@;e,u
SUCH No.7, partly allowing the claim §etitiG§ufe: ,
ccmpemeation and seeking enhancementa.” cf, ‘
ccmpeesation. >M “”” e * ‘~ ”
Qhis MFA cemieg en for aAdmi5éiGn,..thie=_&ey.
Kumer 3.. delivered the fOliOWi§§;’.’ ‘– –. ” * ‘;
Jume?::4:.:xg::_
This is a Cleimanfife “aeppeai, seeking
enhancement of e_cQmpefiSafiidnfa_§d§, ‘the personal
injuries su3taine§win*theEmetof.Vehicle accident.
2. “The .§art;és “a;é- xeferfed to as they’ were
referreéeein Vtfiefizorigifiél proceedings, for the
eurpose of cQnveniefice;,7
-1bni,§G5Q8.iC§6″”at _abGet 8.45 p.m., when the
103V Cross’ road near Sai Sudha Medical Steres,
injuries. Ehe was taken ta Manigal Hoegital for
K/,e
“Exs.?i:tQ S3. Ghvbehaif of the res§0nd@nts, no oral
tevidénc@_WaS_édduced. By consent of the parties,
§raif*andH dacumentaryt avidence an regard» held. that
,thétb3tcident is on account sf rash. and aegligent
~t§riting 3f the Maruti Car by the §river and
tthereisre, actionable négligence :3 establifihed.
3 %FA N0.27E6/O4
treatment. She? wafi inwpatient far 12 days. She
lost her left eye in the said actifient. Therefora,
she prefiarred the claim petition, gettipg
. ,_:¥gt
compensation in a sum of Rs.5,S0,000~®0g~fQ: “ta,
injurias sustained in the saié acc:dent,H”<
After setvice of the notice,-Athe_Vréspfifidentfit
entered appearance and filgd detaiied statement cf'?
objectians, cQnte3ting .thé=»éiajmL :. They did not
dispute the acgident fir the ifiguranct coverage.
Zssue3 wefié;fréme§}f The céaimant in sappott of
her cage éXafiinéd'_hétself as _?.W.1. She aiso
examined the Sr, Afi;laWani¢~P.W.2 an eye speciaéist
and produced. 52 [d$:amémt3, which are marked as
tfietihauraficetfidlicy was marked as Ex.R1.
Thaxfirtbunal <H1'appreciati9n ti" the aforesaid
V,
5 I MFR %O.2?16fQ§
drawing a 3aiazy' af R$.2,85®-08 p.m., whereas the
Tribunal baa taken only Rs.1,25G~QQ §.m. a$ income.
E0 amount is awarded as compeasatian for the faéiai '
J.
dififiguratian. The ammunt awa:d@d_towa:d3f§héVfQ5$
of income during the laid up perio3″iS cg”i¢we1fsiég
and even the amount awar&edEpn§er_the heafipgf 1933,}
of amenities 15 aifio on lGwa: 3ida.” Thus she
comtands that the agfiellané. is* Entitled t0 the
enhanced compensaticn.HW »
4. ?@r,CQn§%a,.théa;éa:jed céfinsel far the 1″
respcndent suppmifiafi the”im@fign§d Award.
5.7_ Ehe V¢aie:ia;, §iaceé. on racord discloses
that the appallanfifiwaé aged 28 yeara and she was
wor%ing”as recégfiionist in a firm by Rama EAI Auto
* .ECCe$$§rié$u §E} 3&5. She was paid a salary’ of
§aQ2+$5GfGQ”§gm;~ In the accidant, she has lost her
rig§Q!eye-‘fl§fie éi$abiiity insofar as right aye is
‘. ¢Qncerned7.is 100%. Tharafore, the dactor has
‘w4 fiigh£iy hald that ther@ is 5Q% permaaent éisability
VF_”insQfar as the Viaiea is cancerneé. If that is so,
u*:Eé’ total disability” to ahe eatire body wouid be
§2.§%. The matexial on record would go ta Shaw that
the appellant was firawing’ a salary’ of Rs.2,85GwOO
7 MFR N3.2716/Gé
tha agpeliant is entitiefi to a Sum of Rs.62,Q@§–%G
as énhanced campensation in additian to whé: aha;
baen awarded by the ?ribunal. hence, wé7§aé3 ffi@
fsllowingz _~m_
08933
Th9 5P§eal is ailewed %fi §&5$-t I$ $ddétion to
what has beefi awarded gy tfieififiyqflai, tfié claimant
would be entitged fig théfi %ddigi§fiéi ameunt of
Rs.52,000*GO wif&#§nfi%;§$fi SE §§*p,%; from the data
ef the §etéii@h, fill ifihéw défig” cf payment. fhe
parties to baa: tfiéi: aw: cosfis}
Ehi/?-
Iudge
Sd/-t
Judge