High Court · 2011

6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Insurer and after going through the Impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. I am of the view that. the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has iiihi1v n.in1nI t)rnp.l%;Iiu)n n: ?41S (ifif) Hfl3id% x us C fl 0O( t’f uw t iii) ss of arm ties disecnr on arid un 1)pirIcs% .jnd ?Gc’ 000/ tnvntd arid %litfrrings flwret’orr in it—rh—i rn r in ili’ anie 15 i ifl alit d for nyc’ er r as ti pensat a riled ) F 1 1 I disc or ‘rid ii ) it ss )SS cit Iiitijir jn ‘ITlie’ as ,t1( enie’l. tire “anir i’ i’n the low’ i %ide ani nrc’l ti.. be enhairea Adlnllledll-b diir Ui ila i ad i ii’ .irc icier Ill’ apr.x ha t has ‘ti’ta icd flhtIt ( I 1 1 ‘Ian Ii) Slit IF E)’u in 1 r ‘ d .ilim i’ a;’: ‘Ii sin u 4 tw’ t • • I • •t • •‘‘ I.e Iii..,.. I •-— 411a .t ii—12_ _ L —I’• - •--d ‘1 •.-I.I-i-- fl:%..II.rr: I 1’ slut-.— .- a’ ‘it ‘ I i I I. I •

1. 1 II 1 6 sum towards conveyance, nourishing attendant charges apartment from incidental and medical expenses. Further. the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly income of the appellant at only 3,5OO/- per month. The same is on the lower side. Having regard to the age. avocation and the year of accident, I re-assess the monthly Income of appellant at 4,OOO/- per month. Since she was aged about 38 years, the proper multiplier applicable is ‘15’ as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (2009 ACJ 1298). Further. PW Doctor has stated that the appellant has suffered disability of 27% towards left hand and 14% towards her right hand. But. the Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at 8%. The same is on the lower side. If 27% and 14% is added. it comes to 41% and 1/3rd of the same comes to 13.66%. But. having regard to the age. avocation of tailoring and the fracture caused to right leg. etc.. I re-assess the whole body disability at 15%. to meet the ends of justice. Therefore. the compensation 7 towards loss of future income works out to 1 ,08.000/- (i.e. 4.000/- x 12 x 15/ 100 x ‘15’) as against 50,000/- awarded by Tribunal. Further. the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards future medical expenses. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries and the age and avocation, I award a sum of flO,000/- towards future medical expenses. Further, it can be seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of income during treatment period. Therefore, having regard to the nature of Injuries and nature and duration of treatment and follow up treatment, I award a sum of fl0,000/- towards loss of Income during treatment period. Thus, the appellant In all, would be entitled to a total compensation of ?78,000/-, in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal.

8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. as stated above, the appeal flied by appellant Is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award dated 9th March 2011 passed In MVC No. 576/2009 by / .4; 8 the Presiding Officer and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Hassan, is hereby modified. awarding compensation a sum of 78,OOO/-. with interest at 6% per annum. in addition to the compensation awarded by Tribunal. The first respondent - Insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation, with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization, within three weeks from the date of receipt of cow of the judgment and award. On such deposit by the Insurer, the entire sum released favour appellant. immediately. Office to draw award. accordingly. JUDGE BMV*