Mohammed Nayaz Ahmed vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 19 September, 2008

VT   1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT   
DATED THIS THE 19111 DAY    kk
BEFORE  E    J  %  X
THE HONBLE   
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSflfi&('{'\;i2DB;'Si§EF§KIYA§E (3o\$IDA

gxswmmous mar  2004 m)

  or 200443
mum NO.--300'i-  A ~ t)1}**    A 

Mohamfiiai Najéaz 
So1:miMd.Ghause Ahmed

 

     H  ..... 
" Resident oI'No.60/ 3
 ' 431'  \ ia  thappa Block
Ba'r1galQ1fe~ 003 Appellant
 (By Sri Sriped V Shastri and Sri K.G.Bhat,

' R--O.Leo Shopping Complex
Residency Road
Bangalore ' fij
By its Manager

 



'2. M/s Sony India (P) Ltd.
A--G-50, Gati Corporation
Sanjay Gandhi Nagar V _
NewDe1hi 110001 " "

By its Proprietor   77:.

(By Sri A.Ravishankar, Ac£§cgg1;c fm~V:R-1)dd %d   

116 mm xo.s1o6 or 
BETWEEN: V  "A

The Oriental irxsmanbé'  
R.0.Leo Shopiiirag C?.>i!II.=i_pieX    

 "    
Bangalorg   »  '_  V-Appellant

S1'iA.}.£nI1an1132¢:d ' Nayéz Ahmed
 ,  about 35"years'
 = 'San of'dE'a4di1amA_ med Ghouse Ahmed
 ' ,.R'csi<ii1'1"gd at ANa.6O/3, 43* Main
 V'asanttzappav.Block
 Guttahalfi
B&ngaEo1'a«~56O 003

 3, Sony India (P) Ltd.
 AG':{30, Gati Corporaxion

dd Sanjay Gandhinfi
New Deihi

   Represented by its Manafixm Director ~--Rcspoa1dents

(By Sri Sri Sripad V Shastri and Sri K.G.Bhat,
Advocates for R» 1) 
I

 



This Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3oo7o~;$£%2oo;;o['iso 

filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehid
seeking to modify and enhance com

65 oAct»%ooo1988, V . oo 
sation as _jaw£m'iodo- 

by the MACI', xx: Additional Judge,Banga1ms c3ityoE$CCf1,+J.'
8) in MVC No.2o33 of 200:2' 

£mmRs.2,25,0oo/- no 10,00,000/g.
This MFA No.8106 of zoom filed~-ljinizcr 'on
1731) of the Motor Vehicios Act, ,1988,"3.eekin'g--::o set aside

the award dated 25.8.2Ci' O4%._  o.:§¢p;:.*o33 of 2002 on
the fiie of the MACT, Bangedore {$V(?5( 1I~I.-8)_.;   _

Those Misoc4lian;coué"   on for
hearing this day,"'o;1T.o.DEEPAiK""  deiive-red the
following:    "    

 ' ' ' '     ._ 
Sri  A  : s:1f__id' Sri K.G.Bhat, learned

counsel  fo'ro~_'§:l3;¢'  in MFA No.8007 of

 am: fotxj¢s1$oi1<iez2.t'No.I in MFA No.8106 of 2004.

SH,'  ieamed counsel appeared for

  MFA No.8007 of 2004 and, for

% _;;4Lup'p(;fllant;.izr1V"'IȤIF;A No.8016 of 2004.

  No.8007 of 2004 has been preferred by the
  Mohammad Nayaz Ahmed under Section 173(1)

 ihe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated

7%

 



25.3.2004 passed by the Motor Accident   

Bangalore in MVC No.2033 of 2002.,  

MFA No.8016 of 2004  

Insmance Cempany    {he 0' 0

ground that the amount.' of  'awarjcled to
claimant together with   (ff 8 pa' cent
per annum is    to be
suitably  0  0.1     

Thus,-~th€:     and the

latter is fof"    compensa;t1'on.

3.  have  heard learned counsei for the

 _  fes the records.

_{_l\_I ivmA.0No;  goo4:

    Ahmed was aged 35

0 00311;!  working in Saudi Arabia with postmg' at

 'He had some to India during vacation. When he

 on 2.10.2001 at about 1 p.m. as a piifion

 at Ban.galone--Nelamanga3a Road,

'B

 



impugned award. The said amount is to   

the rate of 8 per cent per  §;1§1@3  

petition till its actual payment. V

6. It has not been disputad  'u.§»  
vehicle was being   by its
driver and it was   insured
with Iespondeggt    dispute that in
the said  bodily injuriaes
and was  in the hospital for

treatment.   Company to pay the

aJ11ountǤf've6mpc1isafjq;; has not been disputed.

  k above, appeal in MFA M3007

   preferred by the claimant for

' "  Whereas the latter appeal MFA No.8106 of

 been preferred by the Insurance Company for

'VVx3§«:i:;1Ex _--v_ h "'i'bit 

Medical papers also show   iixpafierafi: 
Hospital for a period of V 8. ...§lays"hrayvd :4 fiéfgre fh£it,"'hc was
treated in some other  the accident.

PW-2 Dr.su:end;;ag;g;uz   that his

 

Permanent "  imb is to the extent
of 30   whole body it would
come to 1o'p§1~  had sufibred six injuries.

Out of the   injuries 5 and 6 were

 o1*~.:ig;t  pubic ramidia status at pubic

syii2'p°hi_:s'i's  si joint and fiacture of Ieft temporal

I  *'i2one,  of left Iobodisis rupture, and the

 J :L-;+c.~n¢:~ai%%ningT "were sun' pie injuries.

 A' Tribunal while considering the names' awarded

. '  V '* A  amounts under different heads:

  f(a) For pain, agony, trauma injury and

Rs.4(),OO0.<)0
'E

sufferings

 



(b)Medica1 expenses as per bills

produced by the appellant     "  

(c) Other incidental charges like
conveyance, special diet,

Attendant charges, noux'isI1meI;t.,_  V.  V'

(d) Loss of amenities in life        :2s;o5;eoo.oo
(6) F'umI'c medical     Rs.Ve5;e0o.0o
(1) Loss of income during    ' j_=1;RS.06,QOO.0

(8) Loss of cine:      
disabflityinreepem; "    '
Whole body  "  V' 

as 15 as    

Decision n'_:poI1:_e(i    250 1.. . R:5.90,0OO.OO
Total amou1it__ef 'eiwalfied  Rs.2,25, 188.00

Itwas mended  '   Rs.2,25,000.00

 '  for the claimant submitted that the

 a gave error in coming to the

._ _&~_;.ceeeIusieri   the appellant was earning only

- per month even though he had establistwd

  'I'ribunal that he was earning 4,500/~ Riyals per

 which would be equivalent to Rs.57,375/- in

  currency. To satzisty ourselves as to what could

we

 



have been the income of the appellant in  

we have carefuliy gone through  V

Exhibit P-7, pleading of the appcl]aIi'€."

therewith. Cumulativf: efi'ec't  
available on record and  '  P-7 a
certificate does not iI16piI'é Livé..'V'_c1ear1y made
out that the sang:    of the
claimant    English but the
    also not visible. It
has  This certificate shows

that he   General Manager, whereas

  thgf:  he was working as clerk and

v§'Va.s   4,000 Riyals. So there is great

  and the proof. No other

 document has been filed Le. the bank

 any other details in this regard from Riyadh to

H  his salary of 4,500/~-- Riyals per month, was

  to be crodited to his bank account. . This aspect of

S  the matter has not been established by the claimant. In

'B'

 



Vi(':W of this, we are of the opinion that the  

committed no error in assessing the inwmc    V

Rs.10,000/- per month.

11. Admittedly, the appellant    8
days and had sulfa-red   agony. The
doctor has opined that his.  is to the
extent of 10 per   the Tribunal
has    only at 5
pcr aunt    '  reasons for
reduction    Jiiisability. Tribunal has

  ai.-3 far as this aspect of the matter

i3._cor'mc:::'1:t;;c;L  

i ii   in evidence of the appellant that he

_ jvmpii-:1 I1oti*s:_éume to his duties and had lost one way air

 the process. Even after joining there _on a

iiipa%%  data, he could not be able to discharge his

 in the same fashion as he used to do mrlisr, and

ultimateiy had to lose thejob. It has further been deposed

W

 



by him that he stiil continues to stay in   

lost that job due to his physical disabiiity  K x

of bad performance after the   " J

13. It is pertinent to  the
respondents have not   to the

evidence adduced by the e1ai1}ean.i.V _

14. In the and features
and of the considered
opinion the amounts awarded
deserve te accordingly do so for the
paragaphs.

( 1)’ For’ ” firanma, iixjury
and it fit and

: VV vpmpertp’ award ‘ Rs.50,0{}fl.OO

. %.Tf’_j-(?..)’ Medical” efitpenses do not call for
_ _[“a1.-13*e,g:hs;n:ge. Henge, it is as awarded
by Rs.72,688.00

% eager incidental charges, like

conveyance, special diet,

‘Attendant charges, nourishment, etc ….. .. Rs. 10,000.00

% 14) Loss efamenities in life ……. .. Rs.25,00{).0O

/9

(5) Future medical expenses…

(6) Loss of income during
treatment at the rate ofRs.10,000/-.; ‘

Per month as has been assessed
by the Tribunal V

(7) Loss of future income due to 0′
disability in respect ofthe
Whole body, taking mtnupfier as 15 1’ V
10,000 X 10% = 1,000 X 12 *9 Rs. 1,80,00.00

(8) Loss of air tickette_wa17d”6z1e; ‘f’2s.:25,000.00

the appellant ..

Total compensafion T) 0
» = Rs.4,02,688.00

15. Undeifitile of the case, we are of

the opinion of claimant appellant (MFA

e10~io;3o$oe:?:EJ002004). «ewes to be allowed in part, and is

part. The impugzed award stands

: the appellant would be entitled to

‘ ” respondents jointly and severally 9. sum of

V together with interest at the rate of 6 per

anmun from the date of petition ma; its actuai

w

IN MFA 1510.8 106 OF :_2oo4: .

15. In the light or me V
No.8106 of 2004 preferred by the
partly ailowcd as far as is ‘V V

17. Parties am respective

costs through. H

18. A in the connected

ySd/—

Judge

Sd/-a.

.Tudgé_