Marie Mittal vs Ramesh V on 1 December, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Marie Mittal vs Ramesh V on 1 December, 2010

Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT TEANGALORE

DATED TI-IIS THE 1571' DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010
BEFORE

THE HON'BI..E MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE

Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4092 of  _

EELWE 
Marie Mittal,

W/0. Ashok Mittal.

Aged about 49 Years, _ --~  . ' ._  
R/o.No.2508,Ashnvwu1saqannNas.f'-F

T. Dasarahalli,   
Bangalore.

... Appellant

1. Rainesh V .  " 
..s/o.m1Yenappa.
R'/at 330.908, Hnd Main Road,
-. . ~4§1'»aB«}.0Ck Raj ajinagar,
 ~..Banga}0re -10
(ow"f1'era:'0f vehicle bearing No.CAA-4525)

2. A .. Efahch Manager,
Gnited India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

A  No.89. 2"" Floor,

113* Cross. Sampige Road.
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore ~ 560 003.

 Respondents

{By Sri. K. Suresh, Adv. for R2, R1 -- Served) This MFA is ﬁled U /s 173(1) of Mv Ac:.afga,i:-iiispillithe Judgment and award dated: 27.63.2008 pas_sed"iii--._M*v'_Ci.V No. 2541/2002 on the file Of the I Addl. of i Small Causes, Member, Metropolitaia Areal," » _ Bangalore, (Scch.No.11), partly allo'win'g-- .__VthVe_"(:'1Vaiir1 ' petition for compensation and"=see'_k1Ilg enhancem'eniti.of compensation. V '- ' This appeal Comingfonﬁfor day. the Court, delivered the_.fol1ow;in--g; '._g___ 950 Pay:

This appeal enhancement of Coxnpeﬁsaitijon ilafta?a.r'Clf:;C1- by the' Tribunal.

12. is listed in the orders list, with th_e_VConse1iit~o'i7 learned Counsel appearing for the A i-tis takenftip for ﬁnal disposal.

V ' tlieksake of Convenience parties are referred to as referred to in the claim petition before the l f1'ritiu.nal.

= Brief facts of the case are:

3%' That on 12. 10.2001, when the claimant was travelling with her family in her husband's Maruthi car bearing registration No. KA~O2~M~'7044 on to Bangarupalem road near Doracheruvu a'-..t.an}ier loz".ry7-.. bearing No. CAA--4525 camerinT1'aVsh_ l'._1;g;Vgiigent. T manner and dashed against their Maru;tiA."car,'i'. as "a, result, the Claimant sustainedgrievous Hence; she filed a claim Bangalore.

seeking The Tribunal by has awarded interest at 6% pa.

5. regarding occurrence of accident;unegligenee liability of the insurer of the vehxiele,----«the only point that remains for my V cTonAsid_er,a"tion in the appeal is:

jwhether the quantum of veomfpensation awarded by the Tribunal is u just and proper or does it Call for 'enhancement?

After hearirlg the learned Counsel for the parties "and perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the View that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be enhanced.

7. As per wound certificate Ex. P 4 the claimant'~.has sustained dislocation of left shoulder of head of left hurnerous Inju_r_ies__sustained.';b§"h_er are ' also supported by oral eVider1c_'e'*of exarnined as P.W. l. The claimant has notv-vexiafrrined the V doctor regarding disabilityg,o.-~Slie. was inpati.e1'1t'§ in Mallya Hospital from 12. for 6 days.

8. Consfiderinlggtiieidislocation of left shoulder joint and fracture left humerous, Rs.25,()0O/W aujard.ed l:u)y"»the1Tri'bunal towards pain and suffering is side and it is deserved to be enhanced by _ Rs.l0,00()/-- and I award 1-2335.000/~ ur1der:th'is head.

.A "Tillie claimant has produced medical bills for ";:VRs.':29,366/-. Claimant was treated as inpatient in *:l\/iailya Hospital for 6 days. Considering the medical $/.

bills produced by the claimant and duration of treatment I award Rs.35,000/-- towards medical and incidental expenses such as conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges as against Rs.32,4i00_/%:'.avéard'ed.... . by the Tribunal.

10. Claimant claims to be woriting' Goodwill Carrier Corporation _ and-,_ feariiijing " V Rs.~4l,800/-- p.rn. andhas sala'ry...certificate Ex. P 10, but the sah£né_pi§ eistvabilished either by examining 'certificate or the employer. linot produced leave certificated' of leave she has availedvvjfor absence of proof of income and Vleavel'"eertificate~._ just and proper to award

--'--- towardsioss of income during laid up period

-..ax1'1dlit 115- l3I.v'e11.':'though the claimant has not examined the do.c_tor"I'egarding disability, the Tribunal considering the l "'inj'u'ries indicated in the wound certificate has awarded '"Rs.15,000/~« towards future unhappiness and ioss of amenities and therefore it does not call for interference. iiis"

12. The claimant has not examined the doctor regarding disability and its impact over future earning and therefore awarding compensation loss of income does not arise.

13. Thus the claimant is entitled ifor.;«the"«._foliowing D7 compensation:

1] Pain and sufferii2g' ._ Rs; "£35,000/--

2) Medical 8: incidental'e._p ' Expenses'~~._ ' ji Re.' "35.000/-

3] Towards "loSs.ofinpcon"1eV"i . " --. during laid up p'eriod_--=._ __}?ls. 5,000/-

4) 'l'owards.-lloss amfeniti.esp' Rs. 15,000/-- Rs. 9o,ooo/-

14. is allowed in part and the Judgmenteand: the Tribunal is modified to the stated 'herein above. The claimant is entitled for "tota_;ltl.4corri--pensation of Rs.90,000/-- as against awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation of Rs.17,600/-- refrain the date of claim petition till the date of realisation it excluding interest for the delay of 556 days in filing the appeal.

$3,.

15. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interesttwfvithin two months from the date of receipt of a judgment excluding interest fogf the' de1ay'ot:5SV6" » _ filing the appeal and the samelis ordered. to_:be:VV1'eyi--e.ased in favour of the c1aimant.'tt. ' No order as to'__t:"e.sts.;'A

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court