High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 12 KAR CK 0276

Sri. Balan Banerjee vs M.K. Rajan, Pool Parambil(H). P.O.M.M. Paramba. Unnikulam Kozhikode, Kerala State, The United India Insurance Co., Ltd. 2nd Floor. Seema Towers. Calicut-673 001. Kerala State, Sri. B.J. Suresh and M/s. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd., 20, Jalahalli Cross, Chokkasandra, Bangalore-27

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 5 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Suri Appa Rao, J · N.K. Patil, J
CASE NUMBER
M.F.A. No. 7466 of 2008 (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

12 paragraphs · 788 words
1.

This appeal by the appellant, is directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 23/03/2007 passed in MVC No. 90/2004 on the file of the VI Additional...Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area. Bangalore (SCCH-2), (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short).

2.

By its judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till its deposit, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the road traffic accident,

3.

In brief, the facts of the case are:

The appellant claims to be aged about 32 years at the time of the accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. That at about 5.45 a.m. on 13.06.2002. the appellant along with others was proceeding in the car bearing No. KA.02.C4488 and when they came near Rajarajeshwari Dental College on Mysore Road. at that time a lorry bearing No. KL.2D.1278 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car, due to which, he fell down and sustained fracture of left clavicle, both bones of left fore arm. left numerous, both bones of left leg sygoma and compound fracture dislocation of right ankle. Immediately; he was shifted to Hospital, wherein he was treated as inpatient for 132 days and spent reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges. On account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the said accident, he has suffered permanent disability. The Doctor has assessed the disability at 27% to whole body. Therefore, appellant has filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, has allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded a sum Rs. 1,80,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 7% p.a., from the date of petition till its deposit. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant has presented this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

4.

We have heard the learned counsel appealing for appellant and learned counsel appearing for Insurer.

5.

Alter perusal of the materials available on record, including the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the "tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 60.000/- towards pain and sufferings., Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 50.000/- towards loss, of income during the period of treatment and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is just and reasonable. Therefore, interference by this Court is not called for.

6.

However, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and towards loss of amenities and therefore, it needs to be enhanced. It is not in dispute that, on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has taken treatment as inpatient for 132 days and during the said period he might have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance and other incidental charges.

Further, in view of the injuries sustained by the appellant, he has suffered permanent disability and the Doctor has assessed the disability at 27% to the whole body and he has to suffer this disability through out his life and it would come in his future happiness. But these aspects of the matter have not been considered or appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation under these heads. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we award a sum of Rs. 30.000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and instead of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities instead of Rs. 30,000/-. In all the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,45,000/-. There would be an enhancement of Rs. 65,000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.

7.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified so far as it relates to M.V.C. No. 90/2004. awarding the compensation of Rs. 65.000/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realisation, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The 2nd respondent Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 65.000/- with interest, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and award.

The entire enhanced compensation shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately, on deposit by the 2nd respondent- Insurer.

Draw the award accordingly.