National Insurance Company Limited, Be urn v. Sri.Lagamappa Balappa Shivapure
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/ JUDGE Sc!!- JUDGE Prs*
Judgment
Sri.B.C.Seetharama Rao, .APPELLANT AND: Sri. Lagamappa Balappa Shivapure, Aged about 32 years, Resident of Kanagala, Hukkeri Taluk. (By Sri.S.S.Beturrnath, Advocate for Ri) ...RESPONDENT / -2- This MFA filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against passed judgment MVC.No.1825/2005 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), a Member, compensation of Rs.9,08,400/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition to till its realisation.
27.03.2006 Additional awarding Hukkeri, MACT, This orders RAW MALIMATH, J., delivered the following: coming appeal day, JUDGMENT The case made out is that on 03.10.2004 at about
19.00 hours, the claimant was standing by the side of the road. At that time, a tempo bearing No.GA-01/N-7774 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. As a result of the same, he sustained injuries. On a claim petition being filed by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,08,400/- along with interest © 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Seeking enhancement, the present appeal is filed.
#2. The Tribunal while considering the plea of the claimant has awarded compensation as follows: -3- Pain & sufferings Loss of future income Loss of amenities Medical expenses Died food Attendant charges Conveyance Future attendant charges Future medical expenses Total Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1,00,000-00 5,18,400-00 50,000-00 30,000-00 20,000-00 10,000-00 30,000-00 75,000-00 75,000-00 9,08,400-00
#3. Loss of future income was arrived at by holding the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month. The accident is of the year 2004 and hence, the amount taken towards the monthly income is just and proper and does not call for any interference. PW-3 is the doctor. He has deposed that due to the accident claimant is not able to move on his own, run or sit and hence, assessed the disability at 90%. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. We are of the considered view that the same is just and reasonable. Towards attendant charges, a sum of -4- Rs.75,000/- is awarded. The doctor assessed 90% disability to the whole body. However, the functional disability would be 100% in view of the fact claimant cannot move his limbs. Under the circumstances, he requires an attendant in future. Hence, the amount awarded towards the same is on the lower side. Towards future medical expenses, a sum of Rs.75,000/- was awarded. We do not find that the said amount excessive. On an over all consideration of the case, the claimant has suffered the disability to an extent of 90% to the whole body. The doctor-PW-3 has also deposed that the claimant is unable to move on his own. The claimant suffered compression fracture Li vertebra underwent operations and he has lost the sense of both his limbs. Hence, we are of the considered view that amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no excessive amount awarded that calls for any interference. -5-
#4. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/ JUDGE Sc!!- JUDGE Prs*
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.