High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri P Senthil S/O Late Sri … vs Karnataka State Industrial … on 25 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri P Senthil S/O Late Sri … vs Karnataka State Industrial … on 25 October, 2010
Author: N.K.Patil And H.S.Kempanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 20;
:PRESEN'1': ' '
THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE  _ 3
AND I t K V
THE HON'BLE MR.J"LT.$TIC'E.ii.'-S.KEM2P.ANI§IA°':  V
M.F.A.No. 6533503 2oo5.{1W) 2 
Between: 3 V. t t  
sn. P.Senthi1, H  
S / o. Late Sri. I?e'fi3(asw:aI:iy; . 
Age 27 years;  '  =: 
R/at No. 53;   
Haji Ali Co"mp3;e'x_,

01dTh8-r11g_i5€i§' '*-1;... ..  ' ._ '
Bang§L1ore«56i)_OO2;, '  "

A A V .. . .AppeIIar1t
{By Sri.  Advocate)

'iAmrl:1Q€,. ,.

 'lo. t"1:a£1§§ar;ika State tndustriai

" =!nvestm'ent Dev. Corporation Ltd.,

Vt  Nto;3"6, MSEL>House,

' A "--Cur1ror1gh}1m Road,

'-.,_Ban.ga§oj1*e~560 052.
By its Chairman and
M'at"1aging Director.
Karnataka Government
'Insurance Department(KGID),
V1dhana Veedh1,



Bangalore-560 001.

By its Director.
.. .Resp0ndents

{By S1-i. E. Rangegowda, Advocate for R1;
Sri. Sangarnesh.G.Pati1, AGA for R2)

*:!=****$ 

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Ac-t:"aga;inat"ttiie« 
judgment and award dated: 17 / 03 / 2005 pas.seVd"eVin C No". ., pg 

4165/2000 on the file of the X1X~~Add1. f_SCgJ"'anr1 I'./i_A,C"i7.,
Bangalore, (SCCH--17), partly allowingbflie e1ain1'epe'titi.on_for'

Compensation and seeking enhan"eemen't of~.cornpensation

with interest at 9% RA.  _'  --

This M.F.A. coining donxtfor Hearing this' day,

N.K. PATEL J, delivered the fo1lowing=:._
    
This appeal by"'ti1e:fa_t5pej11an.t'_ iisvdirected against
the impugn~e'd_jitiidgrnentl iand.._«-award M am 17/03 /2005
passed' in  on the file of the XIX

Additiona1«._4.gSCJVV'  "Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

 Barigaloreg, (S"C'CI:i_:}.v7), [hereinafter referred to as '

an ' Trib1,i11ai'i fonshort).

.' .   judgment and award, the Tribunal has

 awarded a sum of ?1,20,000/-- with interest at 7% pa,

A  front the date of petition til} its deposit as against the

  eiaim made by the apzeilant for a sum of ?15,00,000/--,

f
{f ___m_m__H4.,...._,,.



on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road
traffic accident.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are:  if

The appellant claims to bewaged  if

working as a coolie and earning   

was hale and healthy prior accident;l'~.:HeVl*ias"jfiled" V

a claim petition under.' sectio~n:.."g_i66-.iAof  before
the Tribunal claiming  against the
respondents?   sustained by

him in the’ occurred at about
lO.OO:~”p’;i;1:{iylhonilii16:;lV,Q;VlEl9EJ””*due to the rash and
negligent of Hoysala Van bearing

No.KVAv.O4.N.9V147V Iyengar road contending

iirview oflt’he”injuries sustained by him, he has

a_l_.tal{l_eii in the hospital for 23 days as

inp_atient.l:l’a.pent reasonable amount towards medical

V’-».expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges and

x”Vl.As’uffe.red permanent disability and the Doctor has

_,i_a.ssessed the disability at 40% to the whole body. The

%_ZmMM.

I’

said claim petition had come up for consideration loefore

the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing bot}:-t:’si.d’es

and after assessing the oral and documentai’§’ eVid’er1ce’;–r V’

has allowed the said claim petitioi’1’inppa’rt

a sum ?1,20,000/– as compenisationll

heads with interest at 7% “th_e’date Vofélpetition it

till its deposit. Being’ the ‘quantum of
compensation awarded appellant
has presented.-:;t:pp1’iis of
compensatiion’;.”—-. ” it it

H learned counsel appearing
for appellanlt Additional Government

Advocate appearing for SW respondent.

V-is.”‘:5.a.j-~.After perusal of the materials available on

the impugned judgment and award

passed byltli-elJ’I’ribunal, it emerges that, the occurrence

the accident and the injuries sustained by the

it rappellant in the said accident are not in dispute. The

_Tribunal after assessing the oral and documentary

evidence and other material available on record, has
awarded a sum of %’25,000/- towards pain and

sufferings and a sum of ?°9,000/– towards loss of ‘income

during the period of treatment. The said ‘

awarded by the Tribunal is justeaud

therefore, it does not call for interference. T

6. Further, the Tribun’aLphasV’ of V

?8,000/- towards mzedical”” -.e§:penses,f””coni}eyance,
nourishing food and if attendarlt a sum of

?78.000/- t_owards income. The said

compenlsationi,awa1’de’d,:’by tlie”‘Tribunal is inadequate
and it n.eed_s to Further, the Tribunal has

erred in not~vafwa1iCiing_ any compensation towards loss of

“”~-future i,_A’-unhpappinessfv and loss of amenities and

to be awarded. The Tribunal has

assessed .t’_h:elincome of the appellant at €3,000/- per

1″”‘««.’_v”rnonth,v,the same is just and proper and we accept the

if In View of the injuries sustained by the appellant,

has suffered permanent disability, the Doctor has

%4
HQAD_”‘

6

assessed the disability at 40% and the Tribunal has

assessed the disability at 12% to the whole

same is on lower side and it needs to be ‘

Doctor has assessed the diSabilitjyF”’at4é}O’9/o ” of if

the same would be the whole

40% comes to 13.33% andfit.:is._prounded -offv_:to~–.bI2i%”:and ‘V

that wouid be the whole ‘1″l1e~”appe11ant
was aged about 22 the appropriate
multiplier applpicabie .in:to”:eo’nsideration the
nature of duration of the
treatment. of disability suffered,
which we award a sum of

?10,O_O0/-2 f”toward’s fginedical expenses, conveyance,

food attendant charges instead of

of?e;oco;’ae;ptz=i1»::§

9:000/– towards loss of amenities of life and

fiituire unhagypiness and a sum of 390,720/– (8,000/– x

x 14/100) towards loss of future income.

if = 7. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment

award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be

aévoouu.

/

modified. The total compensation payable comes to

?1,49,720/- and the break; up is as follows:

Towards pain and sufferings ? ‘-” if A T’
?’

Towards medical expenses, _
conveyance, nourishing food and A
attendant charges ”

Towards loss of income dfuring’;they

period of treatment

Towards loss of amenities it it a p –

Towards future medical expenses ?’ 9Q§720/ ~*

‘i’bta;i-Q ? 1,49;72o/-

8. Accordingly, the in part and
the iinpugned”‘j§tidgrfi._enit passed by the

Tribunal stands modified, awarding

the cori<1pen'satio1i:V:'o:fV /- instead of 31,20,000/–.

The enhancedv comes to ?29, 720/» with

intertest__tA'atv 6%'"*p…a_._,_vfrom the date of petition til} its

'rea'ii.satiVo11.'f. ..

T . H ‘””‘I’iV1e respondent is directed to deposit the

‘v,_penhan.ce’c_1 compensation with interest within two Weeks

A ‘~:t_”‘i'”it’tvo;i1?’1″~«_the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and

award.

/was

The enhanced compensation with interest shall

be released in favour of the appeiiant, ixrxmediateijg/’;’

deposit by the Insurer.

Draw the award, accordingly-

tsr1*