IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2339 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010, : PRESENT : THE HODFBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATTT; ~ .
AND
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I:I’.’S.jKEMPANNA.:”T
M.F.A.NO. 91§;;QF 2005
Between:
Shashikala Mary
I) /0. Michael.
Aged about_28 years, ,
R/0. Vidya,.’nag_ar,””
Tumkur. V V .
Presently”‘R¢s’:?;din§f:.at ” _ .
No.13,2, St, At1él:hQn’3f’s S.,t1″‘eg:t,_ _’
Kullap’pa°C’1’r(:le_,’ ‘T ”
Kammanahalli,
Ba11galoré.>–._ .
Appellant
‘ l ‘A {By— :<a1e¢mu_11a'h'Sharia', Advocate]
1A.»._$yed.
S/0′: Syed Ismail,
Maj of-,
n o.”‘V1’n0ba Nagar,
Tjumkur.
ll {Owner of Autoriksha
N0. KA.O6–7086].
”WV/_/,,,.
.5′
ix}
2. The New India Assurance ($0.. Ltd..
Branch Office,
By its Manager,
Turnkur Shopping Complex.
BB. Road,
Turnkur.
[By Sri. RB. Raju, Advocate for i =
R} w Notice dispensed with V/O dateci-.12/04′,;’200V7). ~
This MFA is filed U/S,-1«?3{–l)”*~of Mvaet against the
Judgment and Awartiéiatecl: 1.30/0.6,/V2005 passed in MVC
No.”/95/2000 on the file’ of t?’ié:1l:’1’l..’C;iVi1*:JL1dg€ {Sr.Dvn) 8.:
Aclcll. MACT, Tumkur, partly allowing th1je__claiIn petition for
compensation and seeliinglienliiancenienii of compensation
with interestgat 12% Pli_A.:: ” ‘
This i\.{iP’A “t~omi:ijg ‘ore “for Hearing, this day,
N.K. PAIIL;J;’, ‘cEe_liveredi_ the folplowingc
‘ag;gQGMENT
appeal :tlreV”claimant is directed against the
inipiigned and award dated 13″? June 2005,
‘passed:.in4″M.V.C.No.795/2000, by the Principal Civil
& Additional Motor Accident Claims
Tribu1’ial,””:Tumkur, (for short, ‘Tribunal’ ) for
“cn.ijiancernent of compensation on the ground that, the
in’-cornpensation of ?93,731/– awarded in her favour as
0′ “against her claim for 05.001akhs, is inadequate.
‘W__M__MM__,,,_…
_- ” V.
It is also the case of the appellant that the Tribunal
erred in not awarding any compensation towardsiioss of
one academic year and towards loss :ria_;~riag¢
prospects and therefore, reasonable cojnipe’r1-sfvatitcn xrnayi
be awarded under the said an
enhancement may be madeunder other hevadsf
4. In View of vii.:s’u,stained in the
accident, petition under
Section Act, before the
‘I’ribu;nal; of a sum of ? 05.00
lakhsvxaglainwsti The said claim petition
had come”~up for consideration before the Tribunal on
.,iu_ne,. “”” “The Tribunal, after considering the
“r1e.1eva:nt_dmateiiial available on file and after appreciation
ofthe documentary evidence, allowed the claim
npetitiofln’ in part, awarding a sum of 393,731 /~ with
‘interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till
_..the entire amount is paid. Being dissatisfied with the
__MM__MM_,,_,..
quantum of compen n awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking
enhancement of compensation under Various h_ead’-stand
award of compensation towards loss of one
year and also towards loss of marriage p’rospee;ts.l”
5. We have heard learned
and learned counsel fo1*.,_Vp4l”i.nsurance c.priip”;:my’ for’
considerable length of
6. After hearinlgllllearnddi’ the parties
and after of award passed by
Tribunal placed before us.
we arelof of accident and
the resultant by appellant are not in
dispute. t V.i’s.a1.s(3~-¢_nlotl in dispute that she was aged
:22 3′(:arSlll&i’C””tifie time of accident and pursuing her
course. After going through the
awarded by Tribunal. we are of the View
that it v.the compensation awarded by Tribunal at
it A ‘ €’ 31 / –» towards medical expenses, ‘<'3(),00O/ ~
V» .._..towards loss of amenities, discornforts and unhappiness
//was
6
and ?’25,000/– towards future medical expenses is just
and reasonable and does not call for interferenceg
7. However, the compensation __a§warfdeofd–.
Tribunal towards other heads_;app’ears.llto”the
lower side and needs enhance”men:t.”‘l
appellant has undergone ltrelatmenlt of 25″?
days, during which period’,i-shiepshouldlhave undergone
unsaid pain and also spent
reasonable nourishing food
and from other incidental
expenses.” the injuries sustained
and theshe would have missed one
acadernie°yea1′.. _HaAV_ing”regard to the disability assessed
b3{:l)o,etor–,p. as stated above, there appears to be loss of
h_1.arri.age -p1=os_pects also to some extent. The Tribunal
has slippjed into an error in not awarding any
Acompensation under these two heads. Therefore,
“1at§ing regard to all these aspects, we award a sum of
.. _.%25,00G/- towards pain and sufferings as against
315,000/–; ?’ I 5, 000 / M owards conveyance, nourishing
WMWM
food and attendant charges as against ?”5,._O0O/-
awarded by Tribunal and; ?50,000/- towards 1oss.e:o1°i_ione
academic year and ?30,000/– towards iosshf
prospects. e
8. In the light of the facts _
the case, as stated above,V»thie~~.appAe’a1__tiiedv-.b§fi’appei1ant” ‘
is aliowed in part. im’p-ug,tned”}n.dgnie1:t award
dated 1391 June /2000,
by the additional Motor
Accident is hereby modified,
awarding’ of as against €93,731/»~
awarded lbiy at 6% per annum on
the Venhanced’ sunlflrorn the date of petition til} the date
of”rea12i;:»:ation. n’The”‘E5reak-up is as foiiows:
sufferings ? 25,000/–
Towards of amenities 8: ? 30,000/–
emoymenflnlife
Toviiards Medical Expenses ? 18,731/–
__ Towards” conveyance, nourishing food
.. f aruiattendant charges
‘ Towfards Loss of one academic years
/’R
15,000/~
50,000/–
h Towards future medical expenses
25,000/–
Towards Ioss of marriage prospects 30,000/–
“-H/\l£”4-IN?
Totai I,93,’73l/~
La
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation of 31,00,000/~,
thereon at 6% per annum, Within two weeks frozn “aa”te.;5£ V’
receipt of copy of the judgment an;dlaWarr;_l.’l–«y .y l«
On such deposit by the lnsuraonce oultulofu
enhanced compensation of
proportionate interest. “shall in«l’Fi:Sé:ed’lVl)eposit in
any Nationalised or fine name of the
appellant, for V’re;:§;é{vab1e for another
five years,; hy_er._:toV_withdraw the periodical
intereystpypv :2 . .
élof ‘l?25,000/– with proportionate
interest u”s._Ifia1.1 llbelltlreieiaseéd in favour of the appellant,
irsriiediat¢1v~ -4
.y:Office’to__draw award, accordingly.
salt
Judge
sdl-
Iudga
BMV*