Karnataka High Court
M Boopalan vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 29 September, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29'?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENwAeE"'o§'é%1§A..¢
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 10005;?!'
Between
M. Boopalan T.
S/o. Late R Muniswamy 'O _ ,
Aged about 38 Years
R/at. No.843, 3111 Cross
R. K. Hegde Nagar'
Bangalore. '
... Appellant
{B}; A esgmri. Adv. Naik)
. . . . 'I 2
1. nine' Ori.er1faJ. l'I1Su3faD_.ce Co. Ltd.,
Dgo; N0.VIIl;fNo'.'§?.2; "
V. Plaza", Dr. o--;V.J Road,
4. O " BasaVanagudi,'
' ;Ban.ga1ore'-----Q41.
its«..1\r'lanager.
"Mo.ni1a..anjappa,
S] o. 1 Bandarap pa
Major,
" R'/at. No. 13, Kacharakanahalli,
St. Thomas Post,
Bangalore -~-- 84.
3. Mr. Ananda Reddy,
S / o. Munireddy,
Ex)
Major.
R/ at. Ballur Village,
Attibele Post,
Anekal Taluk.
... Respondents
[By Sri. IV} S Sriram, Adv. for R1, ..
Notice to R2 and R8 are dispensedwyfth_j_t-
This MFA is filed U/ S 173(1) of tlxeull
judgment and award dated l7;.O5_._2008 passed"ir_1_}&M"[C
No. 6493/2005 on the file ofjthe_IX; AdditiVonal..V_Ju€(_1gi3, '
Court of Small Causes, lV§em'ber}__ MACT._"1'./Ietrop'oli'tan
Area, Bangalore, (SCCH,N0,_7), partly allov¢*in.g the';Cl'air1i,
petition for compensation--.,an.d seeking.uenhanoerxilent of
compensation. i
This appeal on v"fo,r,iAdrnissio11, this day,
the Court, delivered the 'fols£vow"ing:ii'._ " -.
by the Claimant, seeking
er1hariC.ernent'= eorripensation awarded by the
Trgibunal.
' .2'; appeal is admitted and with the
. «conselntvvlvofiearned Counsel appearing for the parties, it
taI+;en- for final disposal.
as .35 . "l?}rief facts of the case are:
That on 18.12.2004 when the claimant was
traveling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.
KA 04 B 7007 a Tipper lorry bearing registration No.
AP 36 Y 9392 coming from Bagalur to Hennur direction
came in a rash and negligent manner Var_idll"d:'a.shed
against the autorickshaw, as a result the""autQ1#ici§s}-igwl'
turtled and claimant Was thrournlloL1t7._of:'thelvautol and it
sustained injuries. Hengce, he. filed a gclaiin' petition
before MACT, Bangalore' L» iseeking . . l_ c'or-npelnsation oi"
Rs.2,75,000/-- Tribluiial hlas" awarded
compensation of -- -'withfinterest at 6% pa.
4. regarding occurrence of
accident; liability of the Insurer of the
offending.' Vvehricle only point that remains for
it " . V conslideratioii is:
A l.A'.i"»?\l:'nether the compensation awarded by
the'jTribunal is just and reasonable or does it
e.__"c'all«--"'for enhancement?
V " l"'Aft.er hearing the learned Counsel appearing for
parties and perusing the judgment and award of the
H Tribunal I am of the View that the Compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it
is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be
enhanced.
6. The claimant has sustained fraet;:ii*e.'
humerus, comminuted fracture of both..i$:orie:s::'of
leg. Injuries sustained by hirnI_are.,.eKfide;1t,jfroinVrgvvoiind '
certificate Ex. P 5, discharge
card Ex. P 9, case sheet P 11 and
supported by oral ~~th.e"niairnant and the
doctor examined as..,F'~'.§}'s::'»1 §"resV}.jeotiVely. PW 2 Dr.
S. has itliatdtliere is swelling and
tenciedrrieissiifjvin ltrdidee and ankle, wasting of
museles' of 'rigiitV.ieg;:""shortening of right lower Limb.
restrictiori i;:1'i:}:i'e modement of right knee, ankle joint,
. teriderness around right shoulder, wasting
of .of'«:right arm and right forearm, restriction in
Atiie riiovarrient of right shoulder joint. He assessed
.. ,T?;_(?fi3/i>"vdisability to right upper limb, 40% to right lower
'1i;޴:> and 30% to whoie body.
%
'7. Considering the nature of injuries Rs.'?5,000/--
awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is
just and proper and there is no scope for enhvaneaement
under this head.
8. As Rs.25,000/- awarded by the
medical and incidental expienseys ;is:_ ba'sed-.yon',__the '
medical bills produced Vbyfl the"'.elai.mant}
scope for enhancement
9. In the absencei.y_o'fpr:.:iof theATribunal has
rightly assessed Lthe claimant at
Rs.3,500 /- towards loss
of irrcoine iiieriod and there is no scope
for enhanoementl und§:~ this head..
ifonjsidvering the disability stated by the doctor
._ by the Tribunal towards loss of
a"me1=1ities" is just and proper and it does not call for
V. " enhaneement.
'' is.' The doctor has assessed 30% disability to upper
limb (7.5% to the whole body) and 40% to right lower
%/ .
6
limb (13 . 3% to the whole body] and functional
disability comes to 20.8% rounded off to 2 1%.
Claimant is aged about 4 1 years. T he multiplier
applicable to his age group is 14. Accordinglifiloss of
future income works out to Rs. 1,123,480/_
X 21% X 12 X 14] and it__is__awar.deV'd--:'.';as."'against'pp
Rs. 1, 17,600/-- awarded by the
12. Considering the natu:r'e.._ of injuries,v-V_th:e"=T1'ibunalR
has rightly awarded Rs-.--/-- llltowari-ds future
medical expenses and it'dlue.é* :not'c.l_allfor interference.
13. cla'iin'a.nt lisvaaa-entitled for the following
compens_ca_tioni:l:'V'' «. R .
¥'ain._an.d suffering Rs. 75.OO0/~~
' " .2] Medical" & incidental
1 expenses Rs. 25,000/~
A -3} .4 of income during
. .__laid up period Rs. 2l,0O0/-
'Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/-
fills' 'Loss of future income Rs. 1,523,480/~
future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/--
Total Rs.2,'79,480/-
14. Accordingly the appeal is allowed in part. The
judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified to the
CS5'
extend stated hereinabove. The claimant is entitled for
a total compensation of Rs.2,'79,480/-- as against
Rs.2,7'3,600/~ awarded by the Tribunal with ivntefe.st at
(30/0 p.a. on the enhanced compensation 3
from the date of claim petit ion
realisation.
15. The Insurance Company iS"d'i'rected..vto
enhanced compensation interest": Within two
months from the Ctf :jeC'ei.pt_MA'of _ a copy of this
judgment and same,..i5=.:' _o*1?d'e1fe:d to'.he'-diereleased in favour
of the .
.....
Judge