Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Rukmavva vs The Branch Manager National … on 29 January, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH A
DHARWAD. 

DATED THIS THE 29th DAY 01%' JANUARY 2010 2' 'f ~

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K.L;MAI\:JLI'I§IATH--'1,»4    

AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTIC'.E"ARAVIND KUlI§fEAR;""*wV  
Miscellaneous First AppeaI.._l§lg_: 97.86 of 20.f)_5 

Between:

Smt. Rukmavva - V "
W / o Yamanappa Arn.big;ar' *
Age: 52 years _  v
OCC2AgI'i1.C001iC€  I  ,    

R/0 Bagalkot p   71., _,  V  "   .. Appellant

(By Sri K.ArI'and"  and Sri Babu H.l\/Ietagudd,
Advocate) A A    

And:

TI-lee.B'ran'C'li:'M.ana'ger     '
National 'lnsurancepp Co. Ltd.
Kalad-ag:'__Road_" »  " '

 Bagalkot   
 *l')ist: Bagalkots .  A .. Respondent

..  __Sri C.M.I-'Q_c_InaCha, Advocate)

V."Thislliniscellaneous first appeal is filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act

*.l."V..'agains't.Vthe judgment and award dt. 26.07.2005 passed in MVC
RN-o.V26()__[2O03 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) 85 JMFC,



Member, MACT»lII, Bagalkot, partly allowing the claim petition and
etc.

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, Aravind iiifimar
J., delivered the following:   

JUDGMENT

The claimant is seeking for enhancementéof ii: ., ..
this appeal, not being satisfied with the judgrnexiit
25.07.2005 passed in MVC No. 2606;’iigioosiibyi’ivi.LxcT{ii1i;..jBagalkcit.
The facts in a nutshell are as follows:g___i4_?” in 0 it 0 It in

2. On 05.06.2002, the to her house

after attending a marriage ceiremonvy _at_ l\i/iiuttalageri village and

when she C<':l.l'I'1'€"'1~"L!lAl€.A:5|l:' ii'*fiitha1;Sutagundi a motorcycle
bearing No.Kh_28 1'} Girisagar side dashed against
the claimant onllaccount accident, she is stated to have
"rightleg and injuries all over the body on

acco_u'nt"*'o.f :yvhich.pVii'she was admitted to the district hospital,

Bvagallrotihandvivhavs. treatment and she claims that she had

lflbecorne permanently disabled. On account of the said injuries

4: she preferred a claim petition before the MACT-III,

MVC No. 260 of 2003 claiming compensation. On

' registering the claim, notice was issued to the respondents and the

,4?

i

produced allowed the petition in part and awarded a total

compensation of Rs.33,500/ — under the following heads:

Towards pain and sufferings V

Towards medical expenses Rs. “3

Towards disability V

Towards attendant and diet charges if Rsi”2pA,.(}~C)yO;/-”
Towards loss of earning during treatxncritp
Total _ RSI svsisciop
It is this award which is alssailed..in~ this’_appeal.

3. We have hearld;.le’arried gce.un’sel”a.ppe_a:ring for the parties.

It is contended the appellant that the
Tribunal erred’ igfllinotl compensation towards loss of
future incloinep clairriant was carrying on agricultural
opera’titonisl:.aiid to the family and on account of

injuries .sus’tained lifnvgthe accident she is not able to do any work

thus»..r1ot_able’j’..to contribute to family. As such she is required

be-».compen\sated under the heading loss of future income. He

submit that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal

the various heads is abysmally low considering the nature of

r

.15

3

.3 /.

‘z

injuries sustained and the medical evidence on record and

accordingly seeks for enhancement of the award.

4. Per contra learned counsel for the insurance eompeany

viz., respondent No.2 would contend that the claimant

produced any evidence to establish the fact that sheAi_:was’-l.earninig

and the Tribunal has taking into consideration all

placed before it and has awarded the compensationiirhich justiifi

and reasonable and does not calliiiii’e’for anyiiie-nhancengient and
accordingly seeks for dismissal thyei.app’ca_l_i

5. Having heardfievarnedli’counsel._”appe’arign»g for the parties,

the only issue thatlia;i-jsgegsiiifor consideration is as follows:
“Whether judigment’ award of the Tribunal requires

togbe modified/’enhanced if so, to what extent?”

_.6i. record both oral and documentary are

lad”-reconsidered andi:-eiappreciated by us while considering the claim

enhanceriilent. It is seen from the judgment and award of the

it has accepted that claimant was carrying on

‘fagricultiural operations and erroneously does not award any

amount towards loss of future income though pleaded. it is seen

that even assuming that the claimant is to be considereVd”..tas._a

housewife as per the dictum of Latha Wadhwa’s case .

AIR 2001 so 3218, the probable income that ca.–r’1”be::*:aI{e:n’–into’ »

consideration would be Rs.3,000/- and the.xevid,e.r1.ce’- the

medicai evidence on record establishes tiizait” thee.’c1’a_irriant_V§has

suffered disability to the extent of accepting the
said evidence of the doctor, is taken
at 25%. The loss of iVncomeAAVV_thf’at.V at would be
Rs.’?50/- [1/4 of compensation is
computed. The .i.bei’r§1g’iRs.750/-, the total
compensation ret:1uireidVgt.oi’bie would be Rs. 1, 17,000/ — i.e.,
125.750 x 12 x is and awarded.

7. a’I’ribun’a].__V”havir1g considered the evidence of the

claimantsand the evidence of the doctor and examining the medical

prescripti-o_n.s/ w.h’ic”h are marked as Ex.P9 to PS1 has awarded

sum of Rs.1C3′,O0Cii’/ ~ towards pain and suffering which requires to

i if Crnmodified by awarding a sum of Rs.30.,OO0/– under

._’me headingiipain and suffering. Accordingly, it is awarded.

‘ , .

8. We have perused the judgment and award passed by the

court below. It is seen_ that at paragraph 11 of the award

accepts that the medical bills produced by the

Rs.24,146/– and awards compensation of Rs.12,000/Q:”i«.e}i:.i.SO9/o of’ i

the bills and reason for not accepting the b_iyl4lsj;in._

ground that doctor who tendered evidence hasrzot been confronted. L’

with the medical bills. This reasoning:ac’cording.toas isziperverse
and erroneous and requires toa’b.e we do
so. The Tribunal having accepted in the
bills produced, particularly along with the

prescriptions, weiiare-of .o4pi’nvi,or1–. the amount claimed by

the claimantivtowardsiimediical’«billns, Rs.25,000/– has to be awarded

and accordingly we do so; it

9. Considering” the nature of injury by scrutinising the
eyidence ._c1octor”andi perusing the disability certificate-

{ware opinion that a sum of Rs.20,000/– has to be

‘ iVi’gaWardedA towards’Vis:l’os}:s of amenities. It is opined by the doctor who

_hfi_seixamined «as that there has been mal union of right tibia at

junction of upper 1/: and lower 3/4 with varus angulation

*5’ ‘

of 25° and accordingly he has given the disability certificate. In
view of the said medical evidence on record, a sum of Rs.20’,”0OO/~

is awarded towards loss of amenities.

10. In so far as the nourishment, dietvcharges it

charges, a sum of Rs.10,000/~ is required “be lawnarded

circumstances of the case considering the” number of

hospitalisation being 86 days as Ao.bus:erVed_. by.’ the._ApTH1fi§bt1nal in
paragraph 12 and accordingly :ia..st1rn3fbO.f /~ is awarded

towards nourishment and attendant chaiigesf. .t it ” it

11. was hospitalised for a period of
86 days i.e., from15.08.i2dfi2:_’toil’:11.2002 as per Ex.P13 and for
the said a it/– is awarded as loss of income
period. Iriflallia total compensation of Rs.2,08,000/–
is the following order is passed:

(i)A The is allowed in part.

{ii)_ judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified by

awarding total compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- under

the heads referred to above which amount shall carry

{Z ‘


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.102 seconds.