Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Meenakshi vs Regional Manager,Oriental ... on 3 September, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
ITEM NO.108 COURT NO.8 SECTION IVA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6086/2011
MEENAKSHI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD.& ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
Date : 03/09/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Appellant(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, Adv.
Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui, Adv.[N/P]
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vinod Lakhina Date: 2015.09.04 16:25:03 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6086/2011 MEENAKSHI ...APPELLANT VERSUS REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.& ANR. ...RESPONDENTS ORDER
1. This appeal seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded to the appellant by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) as well as the High Court of Karnataka.
2. In a vehicular accident that took place on 17th May, 2004 at about 10.30 a.m., the claimant suffered injuries 2 which, according to her, incapacitated her leading to loss of employment as a helper in a garment factory besides causing her prolonged pain and suffering. The appellant had to spend considerable time in the hospital and undergo surgical procedures on account of the accident. It is therefore the contention of the appellant that the amount of Rs.1,44,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and enhanced by the High Court to Rs.1,78,160/- is grossly inadequate and does not represent a fair assessment of just compensation to which the appellant is entitled in law.
3. The evidence of Dr. Ramesh Krishna (P.W.2) who examined the appellant indicates that the following disabilities were caused as a result of the injuries suffered:
3
“a) Fixed Flexion deformity of left Elbow & Arm.
b) Wastign & Weakness of
Muscles of Left Uper limb.
c) Tenderness & Deformity of
left Elbow with joint line
Tenderness of left Elbow.
d) Operated Scar of skin
grafting over left Arm.
e) Terminal Restriction of
Joint Movements of left
Elbow by 45 degrees & left
Elbow extension by 45
degrees.
f) Shortening of 1/2 inch of
left Upper Limb (compared
to Opposite limb)”
4. P.W. 2 had also testified that
Radiological Examination showed the
non-union of lateral Epicondyle of left
humerus with Secondary Osteo Arthritis of left Elbow joint and that there was permanent disability of the left upper limb to the extent of 48% which 4 constituted permanent disability of about 16% of the whole body.
5. The claimant who examined herself as P.W. 1 had stated in her deposition that she continues to suffer from pain on the left hand which she cannot bend. The claimant had further stated that she cannot do any work and also cannot lift any weight with her left hand.
Furthermore, from the deposition of P.W.1 i.e. the claimant it is evident that she was working as a helper in the garment factory and earning about Rs.4,000/- per month. However, after the accident she is not in a position to work and she had lost her job. The above evidence stands uncontroverted.
6. We have considered the matter and taken note of the evidence as stated above. The appellant was aged about 34 5 years at the time of the accident. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the matter and the claim of the appellant to further compensation, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the High Court should be enhanced by a further amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) which will carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim. We accordingly allow the appeal; modify the award as above and direct the balance amount along with interest be paid to the appellant within two months from today.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 03, 2015