High Court Karnataka High Court

Bhagyamma vs Janaki Sudhakaran on 23 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Bhagyamma vs Janaki Sudhakaran on 23 February, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
E

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANG_ALQ'R§3;--VVA

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY OF Ep:BRU'AT§iY;'  Qlfijof'  

PRESENT _' _ V
THE HON'BLE'. MR. JUSTICE  
 V _ _ 'T .  _
THE HONBLE MR. JUsT*1c1;{::2rx.",1$;.x(ET\:TjGE§I%gl§1TpTf:GowDA

M. FA.  4&1. 7;_Q.iE" 9,c«¢j5~ {1\/EV)
BETWEE3N:--      " »
KUMARI BHAG&?A.MM.A:  _ ..  

AGED 1AEo'LIfF'1'2:yVEARs_," " 
TH1MMARA.J;ANA¥:§ALLi;~._f .
BELL;§w1._1-:QBL:;-.TUM1«:I;RMLUK,
SINCE' -MINOR REE. B'1'..__H'ER~NA'1'URA_L FATHER
AS NEXT. FRIEND SHI\/ANNA.

_  "    APPELLANT
(By; SR; K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE)

A . 2;-*_ fJANA"KT*'.E's.I«.j1)HAKARAN.

.  441/fT;15,?'RoYAL ENCLAVEZ-.
 3¥?"A,v'ENUE NAGAR.
,.EA$T CHENNAI M 500 102.

V  UNITED INDLA INSURANCE CO. LTI).
 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,

14, VHITES ROAD,

SUDHARSHAN BUILDING, 2"" FLOOR,

CHENNAI.

RESPONDENTS

{BY SR1 YE’. VENKATAPA’FI~EI. ADVOCATE FOR R2)
[NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)

%/

THIS MFA IS FILED 13/ S I73(I] OF MV

‘l”HE- JUDGIVEEZNI’ AND AWARD DA’E’I~ED: 1 5. 1 [N _
MVC NO. 1042/01 ON THE. FELE OF THE PRL.*.C’IVI”L,;}UDG-_f3 *
(SR.DN} AND ADDL. MACT, ‘1’UM.KUR._ PA1::*:*1..,Y’v.,AL1,ow11\;u V.

THE CLAIM PETITION” FOR COMPENSATION ANDSEEKINQ
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPI3NSAT.TQN:._,_f1 ‘ ‘

This appeal is (r0mi.1’1g;.o11 for ‘adnlissioii 1:his”;da3;,””s.

SREEDHAR RAO, J.. deiixIe1’e–rj:i’13V_e f<:)11"<m__rir:gV;A "

A

One Kum. 8sV–~years susttainecl

fraetu1'e EiHCl;.v£iI'1?2/.}:)L:V.1tE{1l:J:=§)Hg lei'! sbfighve knee. The total

body at 7.©5/6Vac(:0rding to the Schedule
in the W.C'.«.AVe'l-. V

2. oec1,1:.7reA11ee’~~-bf the acteident. I”1€§{1]’g€’I’1C(‘3 of the

(:1;-:'<2{»:~ 2!)? the {ifiez-zdihg vehicle and the coverage of the

' i;1's"m.'anVe:e 'the offending vehicle is not in dispute. The

:;1pp'eaI. ;)e;"v!'.jai1{11s only for er1.h.a.n(:en1emT 0fcompensat1i.on.

Aeifhe pei.i.iioner is a minor and ii. woufd take around

3.£3h”‘yea1*s at least: {:0 have empioyabie age. The notional

i1;1(:0me of the petitioner is assessed and C0mper1sa1i.or1 is

aiwvardeci about 10 years in advance. hctncre. to neutralise the

acceleraled benefit 2 multiples to be dedLi__Cjfed

multiplier would apply.

4. Hence, the nol’.io:1_al ineiome of lméll..p;étit1oi’lei~~is’~~_

assessed at Rs.3.50O/M lneoixle loss
proportionate to disallj:ilil.y ¥Axvp.I1’1. The
future loss of income would be
Rs.2,100/~ (§i.n ‘llvflflbv rand its replacement from time lo time.

‘Rs.l50,00U is awarded towards loss of marriage prospectus.

In ellla petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of

.l”{S;’C?.,’88:200/– against. Rs.],80,000/~ awarded by the

Itfibliflfll. On the enhaiieecl compensation, the interest.

uwlpayable is of 6% pa. fromfilihe dale of the petition till

payxiieiii.

«E

5. Out, of the <r()mpe11sa'£.ior1 amount, Rs.1..O0.000/–

shad} be payable to {he guardiali iowards medicai other

expenses. The rest of the ctompensation shaii be kept

untii the minor at1',ai11s r1'1ajori£",y.

6. Counsol for the insurer submittzc-d,.__£i1at:~.§her<: isa.

delay in filing the appeal. hence. iphe :1.fite1«és:.*t;e'–._d:sa1o;_¢w;:vi

for the period of delay. The qu§;sLiori";)i;'tEe1ayoV.d–:;§$V I:lOi':';a.1;iE5e ".'

because the peiitioner is a fifiizgoi" as on E136 dézfie of the

appeal. I–Iei1(teiYi1()'–ded1jo{§:t;ri' of"iinfié';*eSt;' is permit.tCd for the
period of delay' in filiiig 1Vi}1x($
Ac:cord};n.ug1y, {.116 'appealv is allowed in the terrns

indi(:.i_1{.<:d'above_. — i

" Gi9S_*'"'