IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 251"" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010, I PRESENT I THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. Pi;-gf1"f1?Ilf it' AND it 3 THE HON'BLE MR. JUS1fICE*Hi.S.'KE_.Il§Pl5;NllIAlX M.F.A.NO. 7147 (53? 2505 (Mvjf Between: D I A D Sri. C.Muniyappa S / 0. Chowdappa, . Aged about 56 years, ' ' D Residing at Haifati Village Post, Kolar Taluk and District.' ' w -------- T Appellant (By Gurudeva Prasad, Advocate} And: it D V V T }_~.'-35:1;'MV,Naga1-'iajfieddy S/*0'; Mesniyappa Reddy, " ~ _ VMajor;'«Resic1ing at No. 31. ._ Roepenaflgrahara, ''--.H0su1'jROad, ' Barigal§orAe--68. 2. Ti1eD:'Oriental Insurance it ' ._Company Limited, V' ~No.9, Kheny Building, 15' Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore-9. IQ Represented by its Divisional Manager. Respondents
{By Sri. Shankar Reddy.C, Advocate for R2; H * V ‘
R1 — Notice dispensed with v/0 dated 24/04/–20O9Aj’– .. 1 ~
$****=i=
This MFA is filed U/S 17:3(1}::’of.. :1-\/IV».Act°a:gaii1st*i.the
Judgment and Award dated: 19/”O4/2005 passed in
No.622/2000 on the file of the Prl;-._Civi1 Jt1dgc…_[Sr,1Dn} st}
MACT~III. Bangalore Rura1~.__ “District; . Bangalore. partiy
allowing the claim petition fo1’=._cornpens’ation and seeking
enhancement of cornp,ensation;’ –. ”
This MFA coating ” ‘Fdea,ring, this day.
N .K. PATIL. J .,VdeliVered_th_e followingj
1′-This is directed against the
impugned ju_dgn_1.ent” award dated 19″” April 2005,
pa.s,ised~ in LvCV;’t’N'(%).52.2/2000, by the Principal Civil
.’ and Motor Accident Claims Tribunaltili,
“*fV3«angaV1ore–: VA’E.§t1ra1 District, Bangalore, (for short,
4′) for enhancement of compensation on the
*gi~otmt1 that, the compensation of ?53,200/~» awarded in
favour, after deducting 1/ 3” of $79,800/– towards
/4nd
I’
the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant,
as against his claim for ?O6.00 lakhs, is inadequate.
2. The appellant claims to be
years and was an agricultL:i*itst;””ia’mi:1gV:” Vsufn “of 7.
?’3,500/- per month. Hegwas healgtliy
the date of accident. on
08-1999, the hlisuitl-lero Honda
Motor cycle from Harati
village to B_»ang.alore7.City”;l alonglwitli his rninor son as
pillioii’ l’1’id.:e1″f-.9 proceeding near K.E.B.
of the Maruthi Esteem Car
bearing 1\l–4~E§12 came from Hoskote side, in a
V’ _ rasli andVvl.negligei1’i;’Inanner and dashed against the Hero
of the appellant, due to which, he fell
down ,an’dj’.,-sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he
Awas”v.Vshifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for
‘treatment and later on to Jalappa Hospital, Kolar for
V. _:%further treatment.
:/
3. It is the case of the appellant that on account
of the accident, he sustained Cervical canal stenosis
secondary to ossified posterior Longitudinal 3 li,ga.ment
and took treatment for a total period “in
different Hospitals. buring this period*,»..
reasonable amount towards cojr1v.eyance., nloiiirisiiqing
food and attendant charges-._includingvmedicalssggcijensesi’
and other incidental expen_ses,__an_d therefopreli he has to
be compensated reasoinablyfif ;
injuries sustained in the
accident,_ the filed the claim petition under
Section l”1~6V6 of At”n»e'”l\/Iotor Vehicles Act, before the
ppseeltingvcompensation of a sum of ?06.00
the respondents. The said claim petition
had for consideration before the Tribunal on
AA 1915 2005. The Tribunal, after considering the
frellevant material available on file and after appreciation
of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim
_W_m__”_mW_,_,…,.
petition in part, aw g a sum of ?’53,200/~ with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of deposit. after deducting 1/3″‘ towards
contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of cor1j.pe’r1sation
awarded by the Tribunal, the appellantiislléin
before this Court, seek,ingy__ enhance1lrient,V u._of
compensation and also to set aside th_e”*
negligence fixed by Tribunal”;’p_
5. We have heard ;lcou17.sel for appellant
andVvl”1earnVi€td “E~:oufis¢’1- for”””lnsurar1ce Company for
considerable. length’
Afterllhearing learned counsel for the parties
of the judgment and award passed by
Tribuvnallincluding the original records placed before us,
x we areiof the Vi€W that, the occurrence of accident and
resultant injuries sustained by appellant are not in
.–Fdispute. It is also not in dispute that he was aged about
51 years and working ag”Agriculturist.
If WWMWMMM
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the oral and
documentary evidence, has fixed the contributory
negligence on the part of the appellant at
after reassessment of the oral and__-‘i:locu–rf1-en’tary>
evidence, particularly l\/Iahaza_1_’….and charge-‘jVsh’eets,
are of the View that the said.pconti9ibutoi”3t”g negligence
fixed at 1/ 3rd is a bit on s_ideua’nd’:..needs to be
re—fixed. Accordingly, having-.regard tovvthe} facts and
circumstances of the the oral and
docun1entary–:alevid£§1’1ce,_:} WVé”~.l”_:e~ti:>iv the contributory
negliglencefiiiondllixfthelpart appellant at 20% as
against it 1. / 3rd l’t-hje.~Tribuna1.
‘ f’urthe’r”;”the Tribunal has erred in assessing
the appellant at ?1,500/~ per month. The
s’an1e_,isof11A the lower side. Therefore, having regard to
x the age and avocation of the appellant and the year of
‘..V”‘acc’ident, we re~assess his monthly income at ?2,400/-,
Vito meet the ends of justice. He has sustained the
injuries as stated abov . In View of the same, he would
WWWM
have under gone lot of unsaid pain and agony. It is
stated that he has taken treatment for a total period of
17 days in different Hospitals. During this period, he
must have spent reasonable arnount.
conveyance, nourishing food and attend-antffcharges,
apart from medical expenses. jThepéljoctorhas-.asses_sed V
disability in respect of iirjnbat ”
of whole body. Further, deposed that
there is weakening .,yAi’s.punable to grip any
object and heis unabiehtjo walk fastland sensation in all
the Tribunal has erred in
not awardingV’anyy_con*rpe.nsation towards loss of future
income. I_~layii=1g”v_regard to the nature of injuries
Asustayienedxpandtheopinion of the Doctor coupled with
the evidence, We accept the whole body
d-i.sab_ility4E’assessed by Doctor at 25%, to meet the ends
pg of justice. The appellant, being aged about 51 years, at
time of accident, has to pull on the life with this
Vldisability for the rest of his life and he Cannot do the
Work as he was doing Eefore. Having regard to the
/I 4__,…,.—–r<~–"""""'""'"'""h
.2'
5
nature of injuries sustained in the accident, we presume
that he would have taken follow~up treatment and bed
rest at least for a period of three months. Since the
appellant was aged 51 years, the appropriately’
is ‘1 1′ as per the decision of the Hon’ble’vl3xpe:¥ifClourt”li.n’
Sarla Verma’s case (2009 is
taking into consideration’ all theabove upaspects, Ewes rel,
determine compensation _awarding’: a; sum of
?50,000/– towards ‘rnedic3_a1 and conveyance,
nourishing food and.:’_atte–ndrpant’.. vch.ar’ges as against
?’34,V30’0′,’.-i;:’:j;.?7a:§i:0~0f==c;’towards’V: loss of income during
treatinent the income of the appellant at
?2,V4Q0/—-d”~pe’r’ .m–onthV’for a period of three months as
agairist ?20,000/- towards pain and
V asuagainst $15,000/– awarded by Tribunal;
of $79,200/~ (Le. $2,400/– x 12 x ‘:11’ x
AA 25/ towards loss of future income.
9. However, a sum of ?25,000/- awarded by
Tribunal towards loss oi amenities, discomforts, and
/ WWW.”
unhappiness on account of disability is just and
reasonable and does not call for interference. it
10. In the light of the faetsand.’ ‘ .
the case, as stated above, the
is allowed in part. The im.;:§u.gnedV’judgment~–;and award
dated 1933 April passed’-inn,_M.V:(l’.’Noi;’il522/2000,
by the Principal Civil Motor Accident
Claims Q ‘Rural District,
}3angalo1=i-efl, V awarding a sum of
$1,231 %7éj;is0’o/- awarded by Tribunal,
withllllintelrelsi on the enhanced sum.
from thedltiaate ~of=pe’titlio:n till the date of realization. The
it – A bi~éak::1p– is as folllovvs:
it Towards “Pa’i.n_}~and sufferings
-41-I
20,000/–
‘Towardsf: Loss of amenities 8: ? 25,000/~
eiajoyrneni’ in life
conveyance, nourishing food and
” .at’tenclant charges
Towards Medical Expenses and ?’ 50,000/-
l’._T’o’wards Loss of ‘earning during ? 07,200/–
treatment period
” Towards loss of future ingzome ? 79,200/«~
flflgotal ?1,s1,4oo/-
rzwe
10
The appellant is entitled to a total compensation of
‘<'l,45. l20/- (i.e. ?'l,81,-400/– – ?36,280/-), after
deducting 20% towards contributory negligencejron the
part of the appellant. The enhanced
comes to ? 9l,920/- (i.e. ?1,45,120/–
interest at 6% per annum, from date: of"-peti:tio1:ar;:Vatill l'
the date of realization.
The Insurance deposit the
enhanced compensation with interest
thereon at per ioiirlllweeks from the
dateizof the judgment and award.
Cl)nlsuch”delplosit’;-by the Insurance Company, out
of’enhanc–ed_compensation of ?91,920/-, 50% of it
‘ swith -.p’roporti.onate interest shall be deposited in Fixed
“$e’posVit’A’fl;”n Nationalised or Scheduled Bank, in the
nanievlllnfy the appellant, for a period of three years,
renewable for another three years, with permission to
‘him to withdraw the periodical interest.
as
The remaining 50% of the enhanced Compensation
with proportionate interest shall be released in’~favot1.r of
the appellant, immediately.
Office to draw award, acC.ord.ingly.hml” Q