i
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2010
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LNARAYANA0.SxA1_A%i{:_"Y'.;~
M.F.A. No. 10800 OF 2008(My)fl A
BETWEEN:
AND:
2 ,. BANGALORE 42.
A (DY H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV FOR R1)
SHRI MOHAMMED MOULA
S/O SRLBASHU " _
AGED 28 YEARS,
R/AT No.3, 15TH CROSS,
7TH MAIN RoAD,'~~1ST _.?*'LQOP._.,.
AZHEEKAKA BuI"LDING, if ;
GORIRALYA, BANGA-LQRE. A
D " 1 APPELLANT
(BY SR1'.'SfiRIPA_D V.~§3HAST--RI,._ADV)
THE j0RIEkY'TT;A:L*A1i§J'S.LviRANCE CO LTD
D;0_.1ITI KFC c:0sYr'RE_L;<, No.48,
CHURCH ST-RE'ET;«...~~
"BANGAi;Q_R"E 1. A
RY ITS MANA£3.ER.
A,MAA.i"1'*
S/'QVVOAFSDBAYI,
R/ATf'j_NO.37, BBDB KALLAHALLI,
SVHIVA CH ETTY GA RD E N ,
RESPONDENTS
***
*<
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE 3UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: O4/O8/2008 PASSED
IN MVC NO.3644/2007 ON THE FILE OF PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATIO|\E.ETC., 7
THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARIsx:O'TH__'I:'S~ DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING JUE'§GME»N'T:':"~L L-
JUDGEMENT
The present appeai Es filed=.A_by:.i:hAev €£dai’:un’a’nt’un__rIeLr:the
provisions of Section 173(1)’ of the7I*{|OtOr \.d.,’eIViD”:’i_<:Ie.AcI_i1'_:,
seeking enhancement of the I<io.nfip_e'nsat'ios_nE'awarded by the
Motor Accidents CiaEmAS._.Tribt'_Tna},,IBano"aE:Qre City, in MVC NO.
3644/2007 dated o4~oee:oos}rV% I I
Z, * TheVVfah(;t:JEa%~jnatréx of the case is:
I The cia’in~..asn_t_,__Awho is aged about 27 years, working as
I Via’–»dr£ver.Van:d’-earning Rs.6,000/~ was traveiling in a Maruthé
E” tsvxan’beaedgjjéegéstration No. KA–02 N43874. When the said
ve4hi<u:ie.«VréaVched Attibele — TVS Road, Near Bellur Gate, a
"T'e~.'7npO" traveier bearing registration No. KA~03 AC–5445
""§w'h'iAch was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and
I
negligent manner dashed against the vehicle in which the
petitioner was travelling.
3. Due to the said impact the petitione’rV:’fe’Ig:l~.,:d0wn
and sustained grievous injuries and was immediate,|:yi-siiiifted
to Victoria Hospital. The c|aimant-h’ad’~sustained’fcornrniiinutedf :
fracture of upper 1/3″ Shaft left Jabrasio’n.,
eye lid, left wrist, right hand~._:an,d leftleg-..fo’QtV”‘an’d”‘swelling
tenderness with abnorrnal m’o’v’erfiieVi’i-t_.of left’-uppjer 1/3″ of
thigh and left ankle. “riie .eclaimfaet siui’rrerieid.%g2o0/a disability to
whole body arid funcifiiona|_:’V,::dis,a’b,ii3:ity the extent of 50%.
He wasi”‘inn.a’ttientifi:a-néi-.V,un’derg’one: surgery. Therefore, the
claimant fcliaiméd~V:’C0mpvein.s:aVtio.n in a sum of Rs.3,75,000/-
__4. ‘””=.Th’e.Tifibu_na~!”:considering the evidence adduced
gartiesf,””-~p«a’rticuJar|y, the evidence of PW2 »-~
Dr’,Shi’va:ptal’ka-s–h, who treated the claimant has awarded a
sum’of_«.i5{Vs’1,.Vs4=.t),0O0/– under the head pain and sufferings,
Rs.1s,ooo/- under loss of amenities, Rs.3,000/- under
mjedical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance, food and
nourishment, loss of income during treatment Rs.12,000/-,
‘i
loss of future earning Rs.67,200/– and for future surgery
Rs.10,000/–. In all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,5S,200/–.
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal the present appeal is filedaby the
claimant.
parties.
6. Having heard the cou:nse’l’for t’he”~parti”e:sr’~..§’?i1d: in
5. I have heard the learned counseéffor~5_’]j:etti-‘.._.t’tie
V§EW of the evidence of”_t’i*.e doctors. wlhol-;’t«reated the
claimant, it is not in disputey_t_h€it__tE1e clairnant ores aged 27
yearsat the a’c.c_i’de_nt and suffered multiple fractures.
Accordingéfto P\.’iI2’*§” l,)4″r;.5:’hiyaprakash there is fracture, mal
uniyegan” of tro’ch_a’ntorv’ with implant in limb with coxavara
,glAevf’om;it’y.Therefore, the amount awarded towards future
by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.10,000/- is
on”‘-.the”l-oiiver side and needs to be enhanced. It is
l.ar:cord’i’ngly, enhanced to Rs.15,000/-.
7. The Tribunal while calculating the future loss of
if V’ “earning of the claimant has taken the monthly income of the
“l
claimant at Rs.3,500/~, while the ciaimant has claimed that
he was earning Rs.6,000/– from his driving profession. The
income of the ciaimant taken by the Tribunal is on the iower
side and it could be taken at Rs.4,000/–. The Tribiinai has
also taken the disabiiity at 10%. The mu|tip!éi.e.r44’a.do:4p;tedV. is
16. Hence, the claimant is entitled”
(Rs.4,000/– X 12 x 16 x 10/1oo):;’u}id:ez’ this i:1’e«a:d’.–.x..,IVj
7. In the resuitigthe appeal is1,vai.ioV’W:ed.°’: .”=TVh’eV
compensation awarded by tn”es:..V’iTri_buna~i_is-enhanced from
Rs.1,55,200/- to Tiiiei” enhanced
compe’n’sia-tioi-i Sii:&ji’i’il1té’T’€’SE @ 6% per annum. Eight
weeks-?_ti”nfie’isV: insurance company to deposit
the same.*–.._
…..
EEFDGE
VK.