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 ‘