IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12'?" DAY OF' OCTOBER.
: PRESENT :
THE HONBLE'. MR. JUSTICE N.K. Pr¥i'1L::' é "
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE
M.F.A.NO.16C4_O_F 2606: {ix/IX/3:"
BETWEEN: i i
Sri Santhosh. T
S / 0 Sri Paras11ra§r;a,._V _ V'
Age: 27 yaéars O-fie: '
R/at C0 i3gCf.c'eSe:-.Han'um'ariti1r OCC: Business.
R/o_1j{37/A. 40:13 Cross.
..B'a.i1gaI0re -560 020.
The I)ivisionai Manager.
V' The United India II1SuI"c1I'}C'.€ C0 L'i.d..
{).O No 6. N0 68.
Chiiiapiir Ii3ha.va .
I-J
5th Floor, 15th Cross.
8th Main Malleshwararrl.
Bangalore 560 003.
. . . Re:-s_t5o1i'd_eT
{By Sri: L Sreekanta Rao, Advocate» for
R1 ~ Served)
******:
ThmiwFAisfimnw3n3173uJ¢fNnfA¢iagan§Lfifi;
judgment and award daT.eci':2___6/10/.2005 paseevd' in_}MVCdW
N08287/2004 on the file of=,1;h"e III Ad.d1'.--».JL'I_dg'e, Court Of'
Small Causes & Member, "{AC.'i". Metropolitan Area.
Bangalore. {SCCHW18).,_pari;iy'al_1'0Wi;1g 1.he"(:'l'ai*m petition
for compensation '~...Elild 1 seek'i~;1g_Kenhancement of
eorflflensation. "
This eoniiiiigg this day. N.K.
PwYTI1..I"_@ieHyered flue fiflldvfirgg ""
'Vj;yDGMENT
Th'is___4apVpea1 elaimant: is di1"eci'.ed against the
judgrnent, a11Vd"aV\:Arard: dated 269' October 2005. passed in
»A iivi-;V.C;i\To;$:2*8_7/2004, on the fiie of the III Additiozial
glizdige arid. VM"()t_()r Accident. Claims 'i'ribuna1. If3anga]o't:p.sth'_' .rV1ear°
Byatarayanapura bus stop on BB1'Roé1d;0'~a"rf(iL;i;€>r"'--q}é:0le
bearing No.KA--30/J-5 -game' _ i'ror0nv_A "{Y'eV}a1'1jaI1k2i' V 0'
towards Bangalore with high _'se_e'd.,_ beingv.drijv'e11 by its
driver in a rash and' o1's1£egs1_ig§ei'1t. and dashed
againstfithe"g.(:l2iii;r:v21nt,»*--.AsA"'a~wr'esult. of t.he same, the
c1_ainia-ntffeli dowfn..a11d"'su's.t.ained grievous injuries.
3. 2°01':_ae<:otzn"t._of the injuries sustained in the
aoc:i;den't:. the'0appe_1_1_a;1t. filed the claim petition before the
'fi'i"ibun_ai~,'e._see_king compensation of Rs.5.5O lakhs
kagé1ir1st'i;hje 'respondents. The said claim petition had
come. up for consideration before the Tribtmal on 26″?
2005. The ‘ ribunal, after considering; the
,,,,_._,,,,…,,….-…..–=-u:-=–=’-°-‘*””‘
J’
relevant material available on file and after appreeiatien
of oral and doetlmelltary evidence. allowed t.he___cla§m
petition in part. awarding a sum of Rs.I.78.00Q;’.;f”–«_Wivtl1
interest at 6% per annum on a sum of
[excluding a surn of Rs.6.000/ ll
medical expenses}. from the till
of realization. Being a1gg1″‘i.ev’ed by .t__.he.eaid;jtidgn1e1″1tf’
and award passed by” theV.l-‘l’r1.b:LIna,l. the”appe1lant felt
necessitated to seeking
enhaneemen_t.Qf eom§~_r)ensa.t1Qn;~.,l”_–.._ ‘ V
“Tl1e,l: for the appellant at the
outset. the Compensatiorl awarded
te._iva1*d_a less (j’f”fu…t.t1re income is on the lower Side for
V ;t:h~:.~1t. the Tribunal has taken the m0nt.h.1y
.i11eeme_(5l3’itlr:e appellant at Rs.2.500/» and it ought: to
h.ave’jt.a:.ken the reasonable income of Rs.3.000/- per
men«t.l1 having regard to the fact that the £:1(3Cid€I1’l.
€)ccur1’ed during 2004. F rtheréhe submitted that, the
Q’
…._…«-»~«-‘-**”””‘”””°””>’
compensation awarded towards loss oi’ amenities on
account of disability and also towards future medical
expenses is on the lower side and requires re21;i%o”1’iab1e
enharieenient. Therefore, he subrnitt.ed*”*—‘£il’;a_i;” ‘.?1__1;1€::
impugned judgment. and award passed _byv,”Ifrib1.snal–..V ‘
is liable to be modified aecording,ly.:…4dA 3 ii
5. As against this. learried courisei “for.
Insurance Company. ini.er”V”aii’ai soLi’gl1i;”‘etVo justify the
impugned judgment; and aj§varVd” by Tribunal
stating ii*i’e,_seonjpensatien awarded is just and
reason.able and .Vfcioes_r’1o_t””(>_a1ll for iriterferenee. since it is
passed é1fi;ei*. he_a1r’in’g;.._-~’itl’1e parties and after careful
evai«I.1a§iori of”th.e..«’oral and docrumeniary evidence,
‘ a.V’ai1_ab’lei on;fi1e.
have heard the learned Counsel for
aplfieliavriiand learned cc insel for insurance Company.
%u5mm
6
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and after goirlg through the records avaiiable on
fife. the only point that arises for our e01′}sidera_t_i0r1 is
as to:
“I/Vhether the compensation auiarded _
Tribunal isjust and reasonable ?
it is not in disptlte that the appeltlertt.r5Lt.staihAed_Mu-litifile
abrasions over right leg. :puI1etz:;rec1 wound’»oVe1-1’inidu
1/Sm right leg. and other”‘ie1;;’ja;1riesr. err the
accident. _-15-12-2004. He has been
acimittAec1_é1.s_ Hospital for more than 26
da3W;:;–… The ‘D-0et,0r hes essesseci the disability at 52% in
rightmlower limb and 28% in respect of the
I The Tribunal has rightly taken the
diS’s1biI._jt’,y-ext 20%. but. erred in taking the m()r1t,h1y
ieneomvee. of the appeilaht. at Rs.2.500/~. without.
“‘.:§iSsigI}ir’1g valid reasons. As the accident occurred
…——w°°=-*”””*””””””‘d”
“-‘ttitlrirzg 2004. It would bgiapproprtate for us to take the
E
I
35
monthly income of the appellant: at Rs.3.000/~. As on
the date of accident, the appellant was aged about 25
years and therefore. the proper multiplier is
the recent decision of the Apex Court in S_a}–‘-1a’:V’e:1’mfa–*’S
case. Accordingly. by applyingtlle (_3o1*reVcte..’1ntiltii_pclie’r,
taking the monthly income
disability, the appellant. beA.’en_t1tled-.2t.o.;’a'”Vsijim oi”?
Rs.l.29.600/~ (Le. Rs.3.0QG,t¥’p_’~x’»-.1._2 $18. 20/100)
towards loss of future Rs.1,02.000/–
awarded by nalfigi
l’ ‘Tl”lE” l’Tfribt1cny2i’iaA__has erred in awarding a sum of
Rs. 10.0020/E vt.oVlV-.:;1rAd_s ‘loss of amenities. without. taking
eiqilsideratiCr:_…tl1e percentage of disability suffered
V ‘rayppyellanit.’ The appellant has to bear this disability
his life. He has been admitted in the
l~lospi.ta:l for 26 days. Therefore. having regard to all
these aspects. we (1
¥,l”l it fit. to award a sum of
Rs.20.000/~ towards loss of amenities on account of
disability as against Rs. 10.000/~ awarded by ‘l’rib1.inal.
9. The Tribunal has erred in awarcling a..Vn:.el2:ge1′
compensation of Rs.6.000/« towards futtérel”ni’e–c:l’iea_l’
expenses. As per the evicletieeof the’*–D’_octor;’,the”
appellant has to undergo two ri1ore”o;)erati’o1_is. of1–e ‘lbr
insertion and another “fo’r._ re1’1’1oval oi’=[di«n:1p’.–a11ts.*..l’
Therefore. having regard t.op_tl1ie»v.salr;1e. We .a_wa,r§’d a sum
of Rs. l0,000/– towards ‘fu.l;ure’l-ined*ilea.ltexpenses.
l0. Hoxuveverlflslo .t_h7’e Compensation
awarded lt.ox1.rai’ds”i*p;aj1iand suvlllevriiigs, medical expenses.
eonveyaliee. 11ot1ri*s_li’ingyfiood and attendant charges.
ar1d,_loss of »i1’:”1eome”‘. during treatment period is
go’12(ie1*-ned’i;..Ait. is and reasonable and does not Call
V’ for int.e’1=feie11ee.~.
1.1; _vl:l”_1Alt]1(‘i light of the facts and CiI’CL1l”11Sl..£1l’1()€;’.S of
the the instant appeal filed by appellant is allowed
“..ili’1»-péirli. The imptlgiied judgme1’1t and award passed by
l…tl1e Ill Additional Judge and Motor Accident. Claims
9
T1’ib1,1raa3, Bangalore [SCCH– .18) dated 26*” October 2005
in M.V.C.No.8287/2004 is hereby modified. awarding a.
sum of Rs.2.19.600/~ as agairist. E .78.000/
by the Tribunai. The break–up is as Lir1der_iu*:r’ it in T V
i] Towards pain and stifferings .7
ii) Towards future medical expeiis}:%_f_sA~’T Rs. §O,QOiO/55.:
iii) Towards Eoss ofiricome –A V. . Av 1 T
During the period of treatrn.ei’:.tV V_ 2._§J;O.QfJ/–
iv} Towards ioss of future ‘Rs–.v1A,2,9§.6OO/~
v)Towards medical expenses,”I}_Q§’i..itVistiiea*§.g> T _
Food and at.ter1dari’c._eharggesk 10.000/~
Vi} ToWaf’§1S’ aiiddi ~»
loss.of’Ani;.e.1j.itie.s._of–.}iie.3′ Rs. 20.000/–
” Totai ‘i€s.2,19,6oo/»
Tlrte Insuvre1nCevCon1pa11y is directed to deposit the
» jenlfianeedeompezisation of Rs.41.,ESO0/- with interest at
‘6%.,’per’ -A3;_’2’m’i;=1i11, within 21 period of four weeks from the
j dat’e.()Vt7i’eCt’eipt of copy meE11t. and awezrd.
[0
On such deposit by {he II’}SLlI’E1l’1(‘.(:’. Company. the
Tribunal shall release the same in fe1v0ur;”(_>f the
appellemt. inlnaediateiy.
Office to draw thrs award ‘c:1{it’f():’C!iAr1ggA1y.;v«” V
BMW, …. M