J P ELLIS v. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Judgment
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1; NOTICE SERVED TO R-2) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.4665/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44123 MFA No. 8438 of 2013 CAUSES JUDGE & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 20th June, 2013 passed in MVC No.4665/2012 on the file of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX ACMM and Member, MACT, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity), seeking enhancement of compensation.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 - insurance company and perused the material on record.
The occurrence of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant and coverage of insurance are not in dispute. For having sustained injuries due to the accident, the Tribunal has granted compensation under various heads as follows: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44123 MFA No. 8438 of 2013 i) ii) iii) Towards pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Towards medical expenses Rs.11,343/- Towards loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- iv) Towards nourishment, attendant & conveyance charges Total Rs. 5,000/- ……………….. Rs.41,343/-
In the present case, from the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the claimant had suffered fracture of lower end of ulna and certain multiple abrasions. The claimant was aged about 73 years as on the date of accident.
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards 'pain and suffering' and other heads is on the lesser side. Therefore considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, if another sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded in global in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, is sufficient and adequate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44123 MFA No. 8438 of 2013
Operative part
O R D E R i) ii) The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 20th June 2013 passed in MVC No.4665/2012, on the file of XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & XIX ACMM and Member, MACT, Bangalore, stands modified to an extent that the appellant - claimant is entitled for an additional global compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only), along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till deposit, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. iii) The 1st respondent - insurance company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. iv) Draw the award accordingly. v) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, alongwith certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE GSS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed in part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 20 Jun 2013. The bench was XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.