IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 :PRESEN'I': THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE N.K.PATIL'-._ AND THE HON'BLE 1\m..ms'rIcE K. M.F.A.N0. 11o73»0F_2or:§é»' Between: -- -- Sri. Kutti. S/0. Mani, Aged about 28 years, R/at. No. 20, . Cholanayakanahalli, R.T.Nagar Post, ' Bangalore~56O O32. . if . . ..Appe11ant (By Suit'. Sréé Sn'. T.N. Viswanatha, AdVOCates}~_ » 132$ Director, Bangalote-560 027. H.R, Renuka, Advocate} ~7Sat'i'ge "B'_r'1jaV'an"'. K..I;1.Roaci, " ' Shanthinagar, . . . Respondent
*7l=***$*$
X
This MFA is filed U/s 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award dated 03.03.2006 passed in MVC
No.31 16/ 2002 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, Court
of Small Causes and Member, MACT. Bangalore,
(SCCH.No.2). partiy allowing the claim petitio1at_’=;’or
compensation and seeking enhancement of comp«enfsa,ticn, ”
This M.F’.A. coming on for Admission. ddagdf, 22
N.K. PATEL J, delivered the following;_
:JUDG Ms.~r;et?
Admit. 2′
2. This appeat by d_ out of
the impugned judgfn’ent..at1d?V0.a>av’afd dated: 03/03/2006
passed in MVCV_.No.:3’1″1€$)f20Og2-._A dbyfme VI Additional}
Judge, Qatisesd Member, Motor
Accident_ j Bangaiore, (SCCHM2) (for
Short
The by its judgment and award has
of Rs.2,49,160/– under different heads
7% per annum from the date of
evtdenee on 18.11.2003 till its deposit, as against
A ‘th,e4_.c1ai’m of the claiman for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, on
“W°w’JM,__’fl____….»
appellant has presented this appeal, seeking
enhancement of compensation.
5. We have heard the Iearned counsel appearing
for appellant and learned counsel appear1ng;’._¢’for
respondent.
6. After perusal of the material avai1a”eZe’_~on’»re–eord,” ”
including the impugned judgment and
the Tribunal, it emerges” the _ 5afte1-‘dd’
assessing the oral and exfideince and
taking into consideration j.ag’erd,f ..oCeupation and in
come def “a1so..t’aking into Consideration
the nature and the nature and
durationhof -treatn\ent”~~dt’ taken by the appeilant, has
__a sum rrrr Rs.35,000/– towards pain and
of Rs.’75,000/– towards medical
sum of Rs.10,000/»~ towards conveyance
nourishing food and attendant charges and a sum of
R:s’..3;2,000/~ towards loss of income during the period of
treatment. The sai% compensation awarded by the
.d_”__m____m__.,_..«
Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore, it does
not cal} for interference.
7. However, the Tribunal has erred’
awarding any compensation towards loss ofamenities of ‘
life and therefore, it needs to aiwardedi
seen from the records that, in’–View oflthe t’inj’3uries”g
sustained by the appellant acciden’ti,*Vhe.i:1as taken
treatment as inpatient for. inor.e”*«than one month,
underwent oneV_surgeryV_a_nd assessed the
disability at’: the V’ and he has to
sufferthis’V:dilsa:tiility”–jthrotigh-.o1;tt his life and he could
not ” he was doing before the
accident:LThisVV’aspect«.r.’§-has not been disputed by the
C<:iripo§r_ation. ""Hav.i11g regard to the facts and
ieireuprn.s_tta,'nces of the case, we award a sum of
loss of amenities of life.
” Further, the Tribunal has erred in awarding a
of Rs.1,10,160/– towards loss of future income
M assessing the income 0: the appellant at Rs.4,000/- per
M
month, taking the disability at 13.5% and adopting the
Multiplier of ’17’. The income of the appellant talgen by
the Tribunal is just and proper and we accept
The Multiplier of ’17’ adopted by the rribuna: is:liabie’.’to
be modified in View of the law-ilaid.
Court in Sarla Verma’s case repl’orte–d
and accordingly, we adopt t-he..tMultiplierA inlsteadl’ V
of ’17’. Having regardpto oft permanent
disability suffered accept the
disability 13.5% and we
rounded re–determine the
compensation’ loss of future income at
Rs.1,20,t§6.(l/’v~ V(4,OOvO/’ad-~ll’x 12 X 18 X 14/ 100) instead of
160/?” accordingly. it is awarded.
1 the Tribunal has erred in awarding
towards future medical expenses and the
same is’; inadequate and it needs to be enhanced. Having
“__”_________,___,._…….s
to the facts aréjécircumstances of the case as
stated above, we award a sum of Rs. 10,000 / – under this
head instead of Rs.7,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case as stated above, the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal is liable
The total compensation payable’ oo’r11es’t0 /: T
and the break– up is as follows:
Towards pain and sufferings.» . 1 V lv.8H5H,000/~ 0
Towards medical exp_enses,_…_ “Rs. f75,000/-
Towards conveyance,”r1ou:§ishing_foo~d Rs. 10,000/-
and attendant charges’ V_ Z 0
Towards loss of in¢Q;;ie..Vc1:;;\ihg.,,,t 12,ooo/-
period of treatment 3′ T’ ” ‘V ‘
Towards loss ofsameiiitfeslll Rs. 40,000/–
Towards loss««.ofV~fij;tulrejglooroe’j Rs. 1,20,960/-
Towards ft1tt;1re._vr1aerl_igaI’expenses 0 Rs. 10,000 / –
Total Rs. 3,02,960/-
it 1.1. Aooordingljr, the appeal is allowed in part and
ir1ipug12.e_d judgment and award passed by the
No.31 16/2002 stands modified, granting
a lE5o;n’p¢n5aaon of Rs.3,02,960/~ instead of Rs.2,49,160/–.
“The erihanced compenflon comes to Rs.58,800/– with
“‘___’,,.»
interest at 6% pa, frem the date of petition till the,:da.te of
realisation.
The Insurance Company is directec}__te~–:: in
enhanced compensation with intereat
the date of receipt of a copy of this t’
The enhanced comlaeizeation V.sh3_.ii’ in
favour of the appella’n.t_, by the
Insurer.
sd/9
was
5&3
ttttt fudge?
. .,..