High CourtsSingle Bench(2015) 09 KAR CK 0125

Mohammed vs ICICI Lomabrd Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 1 September 2015 · Citation: (2015) 4 AKR 626

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N. Satyanarayana, J.
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 102 of 2012 (MV)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 315 words

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The claimant in MVC No. 241/2010 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered in a road traffic accident dated 15.12.2009 involving Tata Indigo GLX bearing registration No. KA 05 MD 6505 and motorcycle bearing registration No. KA 41 J 9915. Admittedly, the claimant aged about 20 years was rider of the motorcycle who suffered fracture of shaft of left femur and fracture of both bones of right leg. In the claim petition filed by him on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, tribunal has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to claimant in a sum of Rs. 2,38,600/- which is apportioned under various heads as under:

Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2.

On going through the grounds of appeal it is seen that for an accident which has taken place on 15.12.2009 where the avocation and income of the claimant not being proved the tribunal has awarded compensation towards loss of future income at Rs. 1,29,600/- taking the disability at 15% and notional income at Rs. 4,000/-. In the facts and circumstances, the percentage of disability taken as well as income taken notionally are on higher side. Therefore the compensation awarded for loss of future income itself is on the higher side. In addition to that the compensation awarded for loss of income during laid up period for six months is also on the higher side. So far as the future medical expenses and pain and agony is just and proper. In that view of the matter, this court feel even if this appeal is admitted, no grounds are made out to enhance the compensation. Therefore, this appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement is dismissed as it does not merit consideration for admission.