Karnataka High Court
Rathnamma vs Divisional Manager on 15 December, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI-HS THE 151'" DAY OF DECEMBER 2009
BEFORE:
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND _
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APpEAL'%No.4g61*2i .1:()FT'.'2TC)'OV8 '/: T "V
BETWEEN: ..
Rathnamma,
W/0 Thimmaraigowd,
aged about 41 years,
r / 0 Koravangal Village, T .,
Dudda hobli, " 'T _
Hassan Taluk. % " j' -'RV..'.'~.'._gAI*PELLANT
[By "
1 .DiVisi0f1a1 1V[aIiagTt:r, ~
The _Orfie11ta'i '[_nsuran'ce
Com?-paliy Limitedv
T T -C_N'ahjiippa..AC0mp1é':%:T,
wSVub.3,sh_ Squa'1v'e_, Hassan.
2;. OJ .As1é"Q_k§%:,V
S / 0«.__JaVva1'eg0wda,
major, 0 Chikkakadaiur
~ .A V"x,;i1V1age,'=Dudda hobli,
" Elassan T aluk.
(Owner of the Tempo
'beari11g registration no.
KA-136291} ... RESPONDENTS
{By Shri.B.C.See1'harama Rae, Advocate for
Respondent-- '1}
=i<5i=3iHi=>it
E
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against
the judgment and award dated 25.01.2008 in
MVC No.651/ 2006 on the file of the Presi.ding~.C)fi'icer,
Fast Track Court~3, and Additional Motor Acc'ide'11tsz
Claims Tribunal, l-Iassan, partly allowirig... _cla'in1u
petition for compensation and _see.l_<_ing'_'enha3f;cei:1ent'*,_of
cornpensati on.
This Appeal coming on for ad_rr:issionv--lV--Ithis 3
Court delivered the followi1'ig_;_¥"V_
0
Heard the Cour_1sel._ mi» t}*ievv.l'alp;§ei1ant and the
respondent.
2. lb'efor;,el this Court seeking
enhancement °c.l'v-_,cornp_ei'i--sation awarded by the Motor
Accident "C_lair;r1s" '(hereinafter referred to as 'the
'l'ribtinal' for She was aged about 40 and was
»Worl<in.g 'as«.a"'coolie, when she met with a motor accident
lresnulting fractures to her left arm and the zygomatic
arch'. x it "Chas left her with a permanent disability
VWnic.h was assessed by the medical practitioner at 11% to
' the xlvhole body. it was on this basis that she claimed
04 compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of
Rs.63,840/-- under several heads which is under
5
challenge.
3. It is pointed out that the Tribunal hasv'~ayva1=ded
Rs.3000/-- towards medicine, conveyance;
charges and other incidental e:>_<3:)e1f1ses._7wG'iV¥en"t'hat
appellant had suffered two rn'ajo11?_'_Afractures"
under treatment for seVe1ial"'~..rnonths, presu.niptionVl'
that the expenses would be VAi.nda'vp.]arger r.r1eas.1,1re:§ has been
glossed over by the that the
appellant not any material to
support would seek
enhancements 2 in {ii --
V of income during the laid
up period «concerned, the income taken is at
/l;~,._ whiehmdis on the lower side and loss of
...ea;fiirigyi'»--haé been awarded only at Rs.4,000/-. The same
requ__ire§-rwloyldlae enhanced substantially.
pp p Insofar as the loss of amenities are concerned, the
a.d'T_ribn'nal has thought it fit to award only Rs.-4000/--.
,,,When there is no dispute as to the appellant suffering
from a permanent disability to the extent of 11%, there is
a short fall and non~consideration of the permanent
S
loss of amenities to the appellant. The Counsel would
also submit that loss of earning capacity has"--.pbeen
under estimated, since the income
Rs.2,OO0/M» and the percentage of disabil_ity~«..is
8%, when there was a medical opini.o_n'1'o'n__ to
indicate that the disability was_l*l%.
appellant would seek all round.enhVanclern_ent.
4. The Counsel for_the_ 'the other hand
would submit. th§alt_iin.V absence ofevidence to indicate
the appellant may have incurred,
the Trlbu1'3_al to grant any larger
comp-ansation._.l 'llhe billslthat were produced were only to
.--v.,.i_thé',c._'leXtent'.._of l§sllllO48/-- and therefore, grant of
the higher side which the appellant did
not'»even' 'deserve. Insofar as the income of the appellant
concerned, there is no material placed before the
The accident being of the year 2005, the
-appellant having been attributed with a monthly income
of Rs.2,()OO/» is just and fair and hence, there is no
warrant for interference.
5
Insofar as the loss of amenities is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,0OO/M. Any short fall is
compensated. by the large amount awarded towards pain
and suffering and there is no warrant for inte"rfe'1*ei'ice.
The loss of earning capacity is calculated
the discretion in the Tribunal to inake assessrn«e'ntl':§)f if
the whole body disability, in to V
the appellant to chew food l~--.ler1<:e";_: Trilbunald
having reduced. the pe.r_centwa'g"e'* disability" to 8% is in
order and therefore, there is no s}va.r.ran;tyf(§_r interference.
5. circumstances, the amount
awarded to'W_ards'* dintiédicines, conveyance. attendant
ought tfoflmhfave been independently addressed.
the injuries suffered and the period of
trea.tmen't,.VlAfthe appellant is certainly entitled to larger
f"amount.-- towards medical expenses, which in the opinion
" , 'of this Court. even in the absence of material evidence
could safely be assessed. at an additional Rs.5000/--.
6
.
Insofar as the incidental charges are concerned, the appellant would also be entitled to another sum of Rs.3000/»« atleast.
The loss of income is granted at Rs.4OC!Qw/4' on the lower side. The appellant»AAwa1s atleast ford three months and if the ineorn'e._ is::"ta1l{eri»._at :lRsl.ll3:G.OU1,Ff%, the appellant is entitled towards loss of income.
The loss of arnenities.:is.:if(.;ori*set3iJence of disability she suffers andit "'ol7.?a..l'Ape-rpmanzent nature. The l'riburi;illllwa_;§vipnotfpjusltifiled granting larger sum towardvsalosslof «The appellant is held entitled to ans addlitioinal. Rs.2O,OOO/W towards loss of it l11s:ofai' llasvthe loss of earning capacity is concerned. the~~.4_Trivbuna=ldlwas in error in applying the income at which ought to be Rs.3000/» and the percentage of disability is at 11% instead of 8%. En the VA ...resuIt, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation towards loss of earning capacity in a sum of Rs.28,640/n.
3 Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to a totai additional Compensation of Rs.61,640/~ with interest @ 6% per ann1A1v.1i1f1_J4'q't'h.e date ofclaim.
SI'