Karnataka High Court
Sri B Y R Nagesh vs M/S The New India Insurance Co Ltd on 9 July, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.-.___
DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF JULY 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE3ATvvAooRAHi'g9TA
MISC. F_]_IRST APPEAL No.12:'92__7_';tkt:2't')o""7"~{_fI\'_w£'_'t_Q
And? _ A , V 1
MISQFIRST APPEAL Nog_1__=3_321[ 2e§_Q_7f~MV.v""'"
msc. FIRST APPEAL no.129m2o»oz;_;m 3
BETWEEN:
Sri B.Y.R.Nagesh '
S/o.SrE B.E5.YeJIappa, _ _, I
R/a.BestamanahaJ|_Vi33/iuage&PoSt
Attibele Hob}; ' "
Anekai Ta!u|<:7._' A t '
Bangalore Urban Dist; ...Appe!iant
- fay' Sr§.vT.N-Avéigwanath, Adv.)
A!'!D= -4
1.A''M/s:{i«ew I.nd«i.a'«I:n"surance Co.Ltd.,
Rep.' by Its.:'Ba,ra'nCvh_Manager
BrancAh'--Officeél. '
Hosur-5/Iain,-Roaj'dAt
Madivaia
~ IT:P-jBa-ngaioré 560 068.
"S}'EV'.K;R. téamesh
--Fath'er's name not known to the appellant
'"M@0%
"RV/a.Lavakusha Nagar
"'--Hosur Main Road
Bangalore South Taluk. ...Respondents
%&/ (By Sri Vishwanath S.Shettar, Adv.) 2 This MFA is filed under Sec.173 (1) of the MV Act against the Liudgment and Award dated 2.11.2006 passed in MVC No.2-494/2003 on the file of the VII Addljudge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT~3, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (SCCH--
3), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
MISC.FIRST APPEAL NO. 13321[ 2007! MV) Between :
Sri Hanumaiah@ Nanjahanumaiah S/o.Muniyappa R/a.Kurigowdanadoddi Village Tungani Post V Rayasandra Hobli Kanakapura Taluk Bangalore Rural Dist. _ .§A'ppel-lant » (By 'Sri'-»T;Pl,.Vis_wanath, Adv.)
1. M/s.The_N.ew India Assurance Co.Ltd., _By its Branch Mana"ge.r_ Branch's--O'ffi»--Ce-1 'i~!_osur~M,ainV Road __ Madiva.la'rr " " l Bangalore Sri K.R,4liZannVesh".V .._@jf'S/0».N0t known to appellant ' P./o,,,La.va¥<usha Nagar Hosu': Main Road '"Ban_g_alore South Talu k. ..Respondents (By Sri Vishwanath S.Shettar,Adv.) This MFA is filed under Sec.173(1) of MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated 2.11.2006 passed "MVC No.2495/2003 on the file of the V11 Add|.Judge,..Co'u.rt=--of Small Causes, Member, MACT--3, Metropoli«tan».__'Alfea,._ Bangalore (SCCH No.3), partly allowing the c'i'aim,,,pe_titibi1 for compensation and seeking en_hanceVn:-e:nt,_ of compensation.
These Misc. First Appeals c'omifng~"onf'~fo this day, the Court deliveredggthée foll'owi'ng:- pp 3uDG:vi'*t=.u:_1"» A A if A Both these appea'i's._ being dis» satisfied by the grant
2. MFA_.1'297.7/c».7 isLdirettejduyvagainst Judgment in ivivc 2494/d3;g MFA--s1332i1/'fo7 is directed against Judgmengtl' of by common order dated 2.11l."2.C)Cl5,on the of MACT (SCCH--3), Bangalore. th'e"i--ea'rned counsel on both sides. Satisfied admission. Appeal is admitted and by the,_.'conse.n'titis taken up for final disposal. zl,.VV'_A'.'~.'he appellants in both these appeals lodged a for compensation under Sec.166 of MV Act before the jurisdictional Tribunal and were numbered as MVC 2494/03 and 2495/03 respectively on the allegation that on 15.2.2003 they along with some other persons were r _ ad,m'i_s~siCdn: .
travelling in Maxicab beariong i\|o.KA O5--AA~5859. As they were passing NH»7, the vehicle reached Bommasandra Industrial Area, the driver was driving the veh:i~cle_g'at'__'hiigVh_ speed recklessly and lost control. Conseq.U.eht._tojfw4hicLh;l the vehicle dashed against lorrygit road. Due to the impact so ggeneratedyt-hey s.u'ffered irijuryttfi to the limbs. The claimantt'V"i'wflh'o_is V'applel~lant2§ in MFA 12977/07 claims to sL_i'ffe:r'ed..ggrvievoustinjury to his iower limb and pate||a'VVwhil_e' 13321/O7 suffered fract'u'r:-fl-"ofgihptalfi3//po"nAes':."'of_...:ieft leg. He was subjected 'treatment continued. Despite treatmiveinty. the 'cohd:i'tio4na::of'-the limb could not be restored to normalcy'resutltintgxin' iahysical disability. The appellant in MFA.}i29i77/07t"hasvsuffered the physical disability assessed limb. Similarly, the claimant who is 'a'ppel.i'an't'Ati'.'n:._Mi?Av.13321/O7 has also been assessed at 10%
--g phys'iCal""tdisalaility.
A. S."VBoth the claimants were self employed having
-_i'n_Vcom'e of about Rs.4,000/~ per month. The Tribunal ~a'cce;3ted their contention so far as negligence is concerned and answered Issue in the affirmative holding that driver of the maxicab is responsible for actionable wrong, That finding is not questioned and has reached finality":'~[:'f..l_l"'-
6. As regards compensation is concerned,"ciaiman-ES', are dissatisfied. Therefore, their case'""is.if_co'r:sidered'* separately.
Rs.15,000/- towards pain sufferin:§,'V':Rs;,10,0O0/- towards loss of amen,_itVi.es,5_:dRs.A5,:Q_l3ij/'~.,towards medical expenses, Rs.5,_0OO/-- i,inc'id,e'rk,~Ttai'.'--~expenses and of future income. The learned counselVha's referredl'lto.,:"evi'dence which shows the pain endured bylluthe cl.a'im'ant"'was prolonged despite treatment.
"Vi""v..i--le"i--coui»~l'd not recouplhis health and suffered impairment. ix's...Ta,l<iVng:,fintojaconsideration the fact that injury had devavstatin'gl§'..aiffect on the patella and his lower limb, grant Rs..iv.'3__,'O00/-- towards pain and suffering is on the lower ""x.5icl.e.?.-'It is therefore enhanced to Rs.30,000/«~. Towards loss __of amenities, though the Doctor has assessed at 10% to the whole body, a sum of Rs.10,000/-- is less. Therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/--. The award of Rs.5,000/~ towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/-- towards (§;>?//
7. The claimant in MVC.4_249rl)'Q'3" has ,,be¢.asws,raea3 incidental expenses cannot be termed as low, hence, the same is affirmed. The compensation awardedj"~b,y«.c'thce Tribunal towards loss of income during laid.j'Li~-p Rs.9,000/-- which i: affirm. Similarly, »aWar:d.V%isTé4,.OQO}l.j'uVV towards future income is based to by the medical officer. a'bsenc_e:is-of"§._a'ny 'otherb' evidence, the same cannot bye---eVn"hanc,ed. 'H'e~nce,,..'the same is also confirmed. V A V
8. In the_=resu|t,"'tfi»e:clai'n3'a_nt.i'n.,.i§'i'i§5A 12977/o7 will be entitled,.to..§ ,§ffia_rgvinal1iincre-aselloflis.15,OOO/- towards pan towards loss of amenities in addition't_o'* what,_fhas.ffbee:n"awarded by the Tribunai. Rcegafrd-Eng ____ claimant in MVC 2495/O3, he has 'es't»abiisA_he,d4..he has suffered multiple fracture to both bones Grant of Rs.45,000/~ towards pain and sufféerirfg, is reasonable. I affirm the same. However, as it liflcouldc be seen, the physical disability resulting from such a * urnalléunion of bones will hamper his future life, award under head is lower. Said amount is enhanced to Rs.30,000/--. Towards ioss of income during the laid up period, Rs.9,000/-- is increased to Rs.20,000/-- considering <}%/ his serious nature of injury. As far as medical expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/e.:'toin.ia'rds reimbursement of medical expenses, conveyance which is reasonable and the sarne"is;V»affir_r'ned,, TA' Towards future loss of income, the Tribunal. Towards loss.of-...Vame'nitles_i=§sii}5';'@DG7-- is'-L' enhanced. A . 3 _
10. In the result;'--tne app{ei;lantjjinbi'Ni,FA 13321/07 will be entfijed to -ehhanced--f¢onnpehsau§hfi of Rs.15,000/-- towards lossi»4ofié1*menit_ies., Rs§j3,'OC)iO/:~ towards loss of income Rs.5,000/-- towards incident'a|_expensesfin"a.d'diti"on to what has been awarded by the Tribuun.al.'iT'he."enh'anced amount will carry interest . .°=atV"t~hae :,.fatei'.fi_xed Tribunal to be discharged by the I In.suranT<':e.vCompany within four weeks from now. 'i appeals stand disposed of in terms of this order." _ Sd/* JUDGE Si</-