High Court Karnataka High Court

Branch Manager United India … vs Kum Soujanya D/O Chandrashekara … on 31 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Branch Manager United India … vs Kum Soujanya D/O Chandrashekara … on 31 July, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE'; HIGH COURT cm KARNATAKA AT' BAN:3§Léé'i§$ V,

DATED THIS THE 31$? DAY OF 2@*Q§&    

BEFORE:  -

THE HOPPBLE MR. JUsi*IcE1"'NA;ANAh;i:rA'_   

M.F.A.NO.49i§§3v"QF 20<i&'MV')L& 
RF-'rW, FERN:  .'

1.

BRANCH IviANAGEf&”– ~ – }
UNITED ENDIA INSURANCE so LTD: _. _
BRANCH OFFICE, J.C.RQa:2D_,”SA’GAi2 V
NOW REP. BY ITS I3E’_V§S§ONAL’.MANA{;-ER’
UNITED INi}iA’INE}L,I-RANGE 2’30’. LT’D_.,” ”
mvI~;§r0NAr_._ Q¥«”Eé’3(IE:,_f.R.”H.,:2?OA.D .
A.A.CIRCLE »

sH1Mc5Gm5*i7 2£3V;:;f”~. ” ‘ ‘ APPELLANT
(By sfi.3QP;§5DEE’P Fiat? N KRISHNA swam, ADVOC£a’I’E§

AND; — ..

‘ ‘ – 1. ~ “;4t;i’Isi Sc>;1JANi?éf
» D’;-Q :;T *2 YEARS,

szfica M::r§~Qmj;:EP. 132* NATURAL
G£aL’URDIAi§;’–wa=’FHER
€EE~¥fi.–NF3!?3}5::’§¥~¥F3¥€A3?A csewm, MA.}'(‘)R”
Eff) ’21″”UE::.IR VILLAGE, AI\IA’v’£’~’;’F’i’£

– SCJRAB v?E?;’¥i1..£}K

_ °’.3mN0HARA S/O NAGEKPPA
‘NOW AGE” ARQIY? 42 VEARS

OEWNBR OF’ RAJfiaL&I'{SHMI

-«BUS NO. KA-14/’€:44€)

F?,’O SHEKARIPRIJA RESPTDNDENTE

(By Sri. H S SURESHAPPA FOR R1: R2 SERVED]

MFA mm u;s.1?3(1; OF’ Mv ACT A:f;A1NSi*”%- m.t33’T
.IUF’}GM’F.N’3′ 8; AWAQD DAT?” 8/2fQ0{}8 P’A§5SF;’~f) .MVC” ‘V

NO.’F5/0? ON THE FILE OF’ THE c:mL..JU£’>(1£;(4s1L*}.’8a”A1:};:>L_
MAUI’, SOFEAB, AWAREEENG A C{}§a£P«EN~SAT_IO.N.,V_ QR
§S§.2,1€S,8′?6/–\&I¥’3’¥–I ImEm?:ST@59r.a’*9.A.:;’_”T..=

This appe:–:d, coming ‘or?-fgar 116:1 fag, °é:hi$*§_’t*i:+13r,~’t,h:=: = L’

Ceurt, delivered tha foilowingr

%
The inszfixrjce éjor;1′;jan;g:VA’?éé?;sVVfiié;t’i’ this appeal for
red11c’t:ion zitif aiia, contending that
by? the trrihxmai is highly

dispropoifionaté fEy’thé”.»Ln’at1:1’e sf’ ifljllfiftfi suffered by

cia,i1€n:ént.

‘A heard Sri.Fs.P’radeep,_ teamed cmmszzl for

tifé-.in:§tx§§anCx§”€§0mpany and I have been taken thmugh

–V recdr<fiS.

AA The claimant was a giri aged ahonf. 6 years at

iiime of accident-

t L…m._”-ii

3

4. As per meziicai mcards and 0f,.}_’W’2

T)t*.V.C.R.k’nmar, claimant had _suffered

injirriesz

(i) Fmctxlre of left clavicie

(ii) Cnmpotmd depressed A. ‘of f’zf§.)rita§ V’

with 7 — 8 mm depress§zgi1′;M»

(iii) Sllbwdlgil haem€)€pmaA~tifi fi’6i’r’rrs”fe1npoml
area.

at

5. The vtfitgtfmai awarded compensation of

R54; $6,875/’–~j_if1Eief’foi’i0w’ing heads:

” % (i) ‘%aetéa4im:V%t;~eame1at% : Rs. 26,876
L’ (vii) A»§t&2I;1dé3nt;s—-and conveyance 2 Rs. i0,€){“)0

‘{ii:i;~.S;iécE’é:§..ci’§.=éf. : Rs. 5,000

(ivj”‘-Paifi ‘a’:1′(i $1 afferings : Rs.5f3,{‘ H31”)

» of amenities, comfott,
A ff Hapjpincss cm. : Rs.5(),0O0

% H Non possibility of marriage
‘ .._I:”1 future : Rs.?'{3,000

‘rota; R52, I6,8’76

5\>, ..R_ m -V’ 05-am. I

6. The learned eotmsel for appellant xyoxxid

submit that eempensation awarderi by the .tr’ii’§:.1Tf2–:;2i

under the head “pain and suffering” ‘

es.50,00o/-), under the head .-was-.;.s ‘of’ 4.’_an€!_ %

enjoyment of life” (:3 sum of

head “loss of martial pmsj)eef.e._V”(aA§13m’nf; §§:fsVV;:’-?v”E”3”;vi’)(}:(“J/~) ” V

is excessive and highly diS.§;1’mmr’f.i0_nate”tn-the razsrmre
of injuries.

7. As altefi-fly .{‘:§éi3f!1§3i}f7:’t§§7aS a giri aged

about: 6 yeef:§_*atV_1f’ne of accident. She had sllffered
mifltiple..V_fi*a1cti1:ées«w.3t:_4fgoffig age. There was depressed

frat;j:ii’re of heme. ‘Due to young age she had to

egfffer imjfnearahle pain and agony. In the

(:i*:*<::1r£1v:*~.zi3:a1"a::é%§::;" eompe,nsat:ion of }?s.5i"3,(}0{'}j~ awarded

ufifierv-f}ie'r}ead in and sisfferin s" cannot be termed
A 9

__exce"ssive.

8. The eiaimam: comtirmes to suffer from residue?

2 effects ef the fravrmres and she wonid continue ta» suffer

W pk V’

from the same during the 1″€’St of her lift};
Citmsidering the age of claimant. at the t.imc~’?:
and also bearing in mind pgaifi i1}:”::<AT1r'r2'x._r'ef1ic=étarv*§'c:A
which the ciaimant had to s:zfi;=-;_~'€gi+ de%:f§iii§§:VS~.VV
me! .I'1'l:'-11"E11I'1g part of her-v.,_I1 I am nfjif.he:,ap3n10n,
compensation of Rs,Ei{)',('}{}C¥/"-? nsiszaifigd I1nti"er"'the head
"loss of amenities life" is not

excessive.

Gr.’ ‘fi’fifiiai’V:hone of claimant has

resiiltéd $33 disfigurattinn has a direct
u . -?'<j'€749§1£"CJ{~b9
ha"-2r*i_ng (311. the _mar_ifa%" at" the claimant. Therefnre,

AL/,

t:iv1%ji"rn:;11A was ji1'si';"ira€=:ri in awarding camjmnsation of

'{2s'{.?5;t'1i.}i};f'4 . i1:i'–j1dr:r this head. In the circnmsatances, I

fiofint Cnsmpensation awarded by the tribzniai

is excefiiéive. Therefnra, them is no merif. in the appeal.

V' V. Acmrdingiy, the appeal is dismissed.

gv' w .

The amount ciefxasiteri by the _

shall be transfenfid tn Civil Jitdgg .5§dt3}. ‘4

MAC’? at Sarah.

The parties are