IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY or: JANUAR\_';;"2£1';§,'~;C5_.: _ THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.ril;.VEi:i$iUG'OPi¥,lgA..:GQWEAEL' MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL"i\ioo.654'?g2'o"o8'_] MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP"iT..Ei_',é._LNo.65"<e, Mission Roadi, _Ba'n_ga!Oi"e}'~ 27. :APPELLANT (Common in Both) iV;.--.!$: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. to 2. Srl. E.N. Shlvanna, S/0. Nirvane Gowda, Major, Eshwarahally, Sakieshpur Taluk. .. _._ :RESPONDEN*T'S MFA NO.6vS{i7_/2'OA_084_ 0 0 '(By Sri. A. Hanumanthappa, Adv:i'Jtdr"R'1._; ' R2 -- served) AND' I ..__........._.. 1. Sri. M.B. Harish, Sit). Basappag Aged about 42 yea'~rs;; _ w = Bage Village, Sakleshpur ":"--aiLs'k, Hassan DISti'J_Ct. ' 2. Srl. " S/0. Major, j:'Eshii/v'.:«;1rahaliy,"5f .. Sa_k--!eshp"u,r Téittk. :RESPONDENTS IN
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
r”‘l
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
2:
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
la.
2%
/s
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 _bor.ne 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
it
/,
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.
K/
1
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~::
foRo.r§R
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 ,/
,-s
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 vA.de,oo’sit’-:’ivthe appeals, is
ordered to be 1f::f)u;l–l’l’.fZ4)4v’.i:i71é’i’ftj’i’HtIHSbUfS€FT}€nt.
sd/-
JUDGE