Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.

Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri M E Swamy on 29 January, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY or: JANUAR\_';;"2£1';§,'~;C5_.:   _


MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL"i\ioo.654'?g2'o"o8'_] 

Mission Roadi, _Ba'n_ga!Oi"e}'~ 27.

(Common in Both)

 iV;.--.!$:i'arayanappa, Adv.)

V V . 1. ES'ri."--!\:4..E.'§wamy, S/o. Eregowda,

Ag"ed_ 'about 47 years,

 " riYiata'sagara Viiiage,
-- _ x __S"akieshpur Taiuk,
 Hassan District.


2. Srl. E.N. Shlvanna,
S/0. Nirvane Gowda,
Major, Eshwarahally,
Sakieshpur Taluk.  .. _._ 


MFA NO.6vS{i7_/2'OA_084_ 0 0

'(By Sri. A. Hanumanthappa, Adv:i'Jtdr"R'1._;   '

R2 -- served)



1. Sri. M.B. Harish, Sit). Basappag 
Aged about 42 yea'~rs;; _   w  = 
Bage Village, Sakleshpur ":"--aiLs'k,  
Hassan DISti'J_Ct.    '  

2. Srl.     " 
Major, j:'Eshii/v'.:«;1rahaliy,"5f ..  
Sa_k--!eshp"u,r Téittk.    


MFA NO.6549/2008

(Bv;?.j’a:”sri:»,~-Liar.~Hanurnan’thappa, Adv. for R1;
0 ‘P_2 ~ sveryed)’~..V _

MEA”i€§.V3£17/2008 is filed under Section 173(1) of MV
Act”against” the Judgment and Award dated 25.01.2008

passediri; MVC No.193/2007 on the file of Civil ludge (Sr.
v fin.) &” MACT, Sakleshpur, awarding compensation of
“C’RS_.3”,’_1.7,100/– with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
0 “petition till realisation.

MFA 6549/2008 is filed under Section 173(1) of MV
Act against the Judgment and Award dated 25.012008
passed in MVC No.192/2007 on the file of Civil 3′:;d_’g.e”‘{,Sr.
Dn.) & MACT, Sakleshpur, awarding comp.e_n’satiojn “of

Rs.3,08,000/– with interest @ 6% p.a. from:the”-éij’a-telofg

petition till realisation.

These appeals coming on forAbVad’m.is7s_io-n
Court delivered the f0H0wlng:~ ‘ ‘

Juocil’ ‘-“.NT


15’ respondentjiii ‘ had “filed MVC
No.193/2007 under S, of Act, 1988,
against theth4ePfil”””respondent, claiming
sustained in a road traffic
accide,nt.__v was contested by the appellant.
After trial, by’ the evidence on record, the

has lava-arded compensation of Rs.3,17,100/~ with

*1-iffeépondent in MFA 6549/O8 had filed Mvc

No.’192VTi’/’2,0VO7 under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

A against the appellant and the 2″” respondent, claiming

‘ compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic


accident. The said petition was contested by the appellant.

After trial, by appreciating the evidence on record,”‘-,the

MACT has awarded compensation of

interest. Contending that, theamount”‘:é1lva’rd’ed

excessive, both the appeals h..ave_’irt5een_iifiyjiitihe

Insurance Company.

2. Sri advocate
appearing for the that, there is
misreading ,~o’fH«_t,.i’-re doctor who was
examined” sustained, treatment
admin’i’stVeredV5.V_v resulitalit effect. He further
conten’de’d«’. awarded under the head pain

andV_suffeir’ihg’s is; excessive and at any event, the total

amount auvardedV””i’s”Vfar in excess of just compensation

“l3:aT_ya.l3:l:e._;to”th.e”_;3′ respondent in each of these appeals.

“On the other hand, Sri A. Hanumanthappa,

‘.lear_necl counsel appearing for the 15’ respondent –»~

Vclaimants, by taking me through the evidence placed on

if ” “record of the MACT, submitted that the income of the




documentary evidence on record. Doctor who treated the

claimants has deposed. The appreciation of evitie_nc:e’.._by

the Tribunal with regard to the injuries isgiin

with record. Considering the naturreyof .i’nju”n”es’4sustained ‘

by the claimants, the impugned awa”r*d

‘pain and sufferings’ though.i_s”‘margAi’nally on-,a side,’ ‘

considering the fact that, thVAe…irn,pu’g-~n’ed .awavrds.’}under the
incidental expenses conveyance
and attendantif-c’harge’s,”‘beiVng..V:’\r..Q’n..V’- lower side, no
interference» v.iith’e to the amount

awa rde__d__,u n’d.e”r’ ti.:e Vyhead n– a grid} sufferings’.

l-Theywgfarnou-n,t”‘r«.spent towards obtaining of

treatrnentis the documentary evidence on

The Triibunal has awarded the actual medical

e’xpense..s:asi’evidenced from the documents and hence, the

a’rn_ountV.awa,ided under the head ‘medical expenses’ does

‘<._not ca:i___for any interference. Considering the evidence on

'r'_r'eco'rd, the amount awarded under the head 'future

medical expenses' is also justified. So also the amount



awarded under the head 'future unhappiness' and_.~'.l_oss of

amenities', does not call for any interference.

7. The Tribunal by misreading th_e..e_y’ivdVen.ce4.ofthey

doctor, has taken the disability at 3(1):?/oj–.a”s>aga’inst.’1Qb/eiyto

the whole body. In that_vievii”;_o’f= thetyfnatter,

assessing the loss of future the Tribunal
has made wrong calcvu:l”at_ionfanfd: a amount.
Considering the to the
whole body earning capacity
works outito per annum.

In tervmflsufofii ‘_”_3’3.,;”IV!\VlilcA VERMA & OTHERS Vs.
DELHI:V”‘Ti?#ANVSPffiVV’ltfjV’C’O*i§l3C3RATION & ANOTHER” reported

in 2009 1_?;9i8.,.V’*thAe- rriultiplier applicable is 14. When so

-‘W,._apip.l’i’eci,.A-anizl_assessé’d,V the loss of future earning capacity

::o.i:,it..4″to:V”_{2s.75,600/~ which the claimant in MVC

!\lot__i%93/v{J.7_:i’i§gs’entitled to. Thus, there is an excess award

‘*.,to the extent of Rs.29,700/– in MVC Nol193/07 which is

..,lf”tl*1e_’..§A’L:bject matter for consideration in MFA 6547/O8.



8. Even in the case of the claimant in MVC

No.192/O7, except the amount awarded under’jth:eL:’–_head

‘loss of future earning capacity’, the amounts.,award_ed°»

under all other heads are justified.~~~O_nly to thew’

loss of future earning capacity ‘is c:o_An’c*ern’er_lV ,’ –t,here.:”i’s.v”a’n

excess award to the extento:f”~Rs.37;8QU,/.5Vi’;.e,”;..;Va’s’adainst’

the entitlement of Rs.75,600/ef-_R31,13}4’O0/Chas been

awarded and to that merit.

In the re’s’z”;.jlt{,’ I passthie iol:lowi’ng~::

6S47[V2t):O£i’is…a’l’l’o’wed in part.

__In rno”dificat.i’on”-of’Tthe judgment and award passed

:,.T.riUunal,Hit”i’s”held that, the claimant is entitled to

Rs.2,87,384/– “as against Rs.3,17,100/-

awairded.tlhe Tribunal.” The award of Rs.2,87,384/~

‘gshall carry Interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim

till the date of deposit. K

A ,/


MFA 6549/2008 is afiowed in part.

In modification of the judgment and awas€d’–s’;’j”assved

by the Tribunal, it is held that, the ciaimant_.’-is

compensation of Rs.2,7O,183/3} (ro_a’n’d”eti’_’:.’V”offK. to”

Rs.2,70,200/–) “as against Rs.3,Q:8,ODO/I»uAay\ia.tded”bt3{&tiue

Tribunai.” The award of Rs,2,.7_.0,2O’O,/_¥”shaiiz@fa’.ri~y,_Vjnt.erestdo”

at 6% p.a. from the date of petition:ti’ii: date of
deposit. V. Q i V
The amount in,oo’sit’-:’ivthe appeals, is

ordered to be 1f::f)u;l–l’l’.fZ4)4v’.i:i71é’i’ftj’i’HtIHSbUfS€FT}€nt.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.193 seconds.