High CourtsSingle Bench

Mrs. Hajira Sultana vs Mr. Sashidharan

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 15 October 2011 · Citation: (2011) 10 KAR CK 0087

HON’BLE JUDGES
N.K. Patil, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.F.A. No. 8436 of 2008 (MV)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 876 words

N.K. Patil

1.

This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 13th May 2008, passed in M.V.C.No. 9030/2007. by the V Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Mayohali Unit, Metropolitan Area. Bangalore (SCCH-20), (for short, Tribunal) for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation of Rs. 1,44,4,00/- with interest. @ 6% p.a. awarded in favour of the claimant as against her claim for Rs. 10,00,000/-. is inadequate. The appellant claims to be aged about 32 years and hale and healthy prior to The dale of accident. That the occurrence of accident at about 4:10 P.M., on 26-11-2007, when the appellant was riding a scooty at Queens Circle, within the limis of Cubbon Park Police Station. Bangalore, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car bearing No.KA-05/D-4647. is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appellant haw sustained fracture of left hand humeros and look treatment at St. Philomena''s Hospital as in patient and underwent a surgery and also took further treatment.

2.

It is her further case that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, she has undergone severe pain and agony and for the treatment of the said injuries, she has spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges including medical expenses and other incidental expenses and therefore, she has to be compensated reasonably.

3.

The learned counsel for appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards all The heads and reasonable compensation may he awarded under all the heads and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly.

4.

On account of the injuries sustained In the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- against the respondents. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 13th May, 2008. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and alter appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,44,400/- under different heads, with interest at 6% per annum on Rs. 1,30,400/- from the date of petition till the date of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant is in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation.

5.

I have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant'' and also insurer.

6.

After careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, T am of the view that the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has awarded just and reasonable compensation towards injury, pain and sufferings, medical and hospital charges, loss of amenities, discomfort and unhappiness loss of income during treatment period and future loss of income. However, it has erred in not awarding reasonable compensation towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges and future medical expenses. Admittedly due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant was inpatient in different Hospitals for a period of four days and also underwent a surgery. During the treatment period, she would have spent reasonable amount towards conveyance nourishing food and attendant charges and must have also spent reasonable amount towards medical and other incidental expenses. Further, on account of undergoing surgery, she may incur future medical expenses. A sum of Rs. 5.000/- awarded towards future medical expenses and a sum of Rs. 8,000/- awarded towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges is also on the lower side and needs to be enhanced. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, undergoing a surgery, age and the nature and duration of treatment. I deem it fit to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges as against Rs. 3,000/- and a sum of Rs. .10,000/- towards future medical expenses as against Rs. 5,000/- awarded by Tribunal and in all the total enhancement would, come to a sum of Rs. 12,000/- with interest at 6% per annum, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by appellant is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 13th May 2008, passed in M.V.O. No. 9030/2007, by the V Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes. Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mayohall Unit, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH-20), is hereby modified, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 12,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.

The second respondent Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 12.000/- with interest thereon at 0% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and award.

On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum shall be released in favour of the appellant, immediately.

Office to draw award, accordingly.