Allowed

Rizwan Begum D/O Rasool Sab Shahapur v. Nirmala W/O Manohar Mani

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2014MFA/30341/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a first appeal for enhancement of compensation in a motor vehicle accident case. Setting aside the Tribunal's award of Rs. 49,000, the court awarded Rs. 1,10,000 with interest at 9% p.a. based on a reassessed disability of 5% and provision for future earnings.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,10,000 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition; 50% deposited for five years.

Rizwan Begum D/O Rasool Sab Shahapur Vs Nirmala W/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

MFA 30341/10

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.30341 OF 2010 [MV]

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Rizwan Begum, D/o. Rasool Sab, Shahapur, Age: 19 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Harkanchi, Tq. & Dist. Gulbarga. … APPELLANT/S [By Sri. Babu H.Metagudda, Adv.]

¶10

AND:

¶11

Nirmala, W/o. Manohar Mani, Age: Major, Occ: owner of vehicle, R/o. Kamalapur, Tq. & Dist. Gulbarga.

¶12

The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.8^th Block, Asian Plaza Complex, Station Road,

¶13

MFA 30341/10

¶14

¶15

Near S.V.Patel Chowk, Gulbarga. … RESPONDENT/S

¶16

[By Sri. Sudarshan M., Adv. for R2. Notice to R1 is dispensed with.]

¶17

¶18

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act, against the Judgment and Award dated 9.9.2009 passed in MVC No.969/2008 on the file of II Addl.Civil Judge [Sr. Dn.] at Gulbarga, partly allowing the claim petition and seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶19

This MFA coming on for Final Hearing, this day the Court delivered the following:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant dissatisfied with the amount of

¶22

compensation granted by the Tribunal for the

¶23

injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident has filed this appeal, seeking enhancement.

¶24

The facts reveal that on 21.04.2008, the

¶25

appellant was travelling in the Maxi Cab bearing reg. No.KA.22/6057 and the driver drove it in rash

¶26

and negligent manner and dashed against a lorry and thereby, she sustained injuries in the said

¶27

MFA 30341/10

¶28

¶29

accident. She had suffered fracture of both rami of hip bones. She was treated in the hospital. She suffered disability. Therefore, made a claim for compensation for pain, suffering, mental agony, medical expenses etc.

¶30

After recording the evidence, the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.49,000-00 as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the appellant has approached this Court, seeking enhancement.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the

¶32

parties.

¶33

The point that arises for my consideration

¶34

is;

¶35

Whether the appellant is entitled to the enhancement of the compensation? If so, to what extent?

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant would

¶37

submit that the Tribunal has not granted reasonable

¶38

MFA 30341/10

¶39

¶40

compensation. The assessment of loss of future income and the disability is on the lower side. He also submits that the compensation towards loss of amenities is not granted and the compensation on other heads is very meager.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurer supports the Judgment and Award and submits that just compensation is granted.

¶42

Ex.P14 is the wound certificate and Ex.P15 is the discharge card. The appellant was in-patient for 8 days. P.W.3-doctor has assessed the disability in relation to the fracture of both rami of hip bones and said that there is permanent disability to an extent of 15%.

¶43

The perusal of the material placed on

¶44

record would reveal that there is re-union of bones and old healed fracture is found after obtaining X- ray at Ex.P17. The Tribunal has considered the disability at 3.75% for whole body on the ground

¶45

MFA 30341/10

¶46

¶47

that the doctor who treated is not examined. Taking into consideration the disability assessed at 15% to the particular part of the body, I think it is just and proper to grant 1/3^rd of the same i.e., at 5%.

¶48

So far as loss of future income is concerned, the appellant was a minor as held by the Tribunal and therefore, the principle laid-down by the Apex Court in a case of minor, on the basis of the disability has to be considered. As the disability is assessed at 5%, a sum of Rs.50,000-00 has to be paid towards loss of future earnings.

¶49

The Tribunal has paid a sum of Rs.10,000-00

¶50

for pain, suffering and mental agony. I think it is just and proper to award additional sum of Rs.10,000-00 on this head. The compensation towards medical expenses and loss of marriage prospects at Rs.15,000-00 each and the compensation towards food and nourishment at Rs.5,000-00 are just and reasonable. The appellant is entitled to a sum of

¶51

MFA 30341/10

¶52

¶53

Rs.5,000-00 towards loss of amenities. Thereby the compensation payable to the appellant would be;

¶54

Rs. Ps.

¶55

Pain, suffering and mental agony.	:	20,000-00
Medical expenses.	:	15,000-00
Food and nourishment.	:	5,000-00
Loss of future earnings.	:	50,000-00
Loss of amenities.	:	5,000-00
Loss of marriage prospectus.	:	15,000-00
Total	:	1,10,000-00

¶56

Rs.1,10,000-00 with interest at 9% p.a. from the

¶57

date of the petition till its payment. Hence, the point is answered in affirmative.

¶58

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award is set aside. The appellant is entitled to a total compensation of

¶59

MFA 30341/10

¶60

¶61

Rs.1,10,000-00 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till its payment.

¶62

Out of the compensation awarded, 50% shall be deposited in the name of the appellant for a period of five years and the excess amount shall be paid to her.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE. Ksm*

Rizwan Begum D/O Rasool Sab Shahapur v. Nirmala W/O Manohar Mani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rizwan Begum D/O Rasool Sab Shahapur v. Nirmala W/O Manohar Mani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Vs Smt.Laxmi @ Anjana Devi

Icici Lombard Gen. Ins, Co.,Ltd, Vs Peerappa S/O Dhulappa Dharigond and Otrs

Manjunath @ Manjugouda S/O Yamunappa Gouda Vs B.S. Biradar S/O Shanta Gouda Biradar and Anr.

Baba S/O Saheb Lal Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Bharathbai W/O Late Babu Udgere Vs Maruthi S/O Bandappa Pujari Ors.

Dastagirsab S/O Ameensab Alamela Vs Shabbir Ahmed S/O Dastgirsab Doddamani