IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10981 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT. VIJAYA RAO WIFE OF DR. K.S. MAHESH RAO 46 YEARS, NO. 25, 5TH MAIN ROAD JAYALAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU CITY.
…APPELLANT (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CITY BRANCH OFFICE, CHAMARAJA DOUBLE ROAD, NEAR RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSURU – 24.
2. M.S. NAGENDRA SON OF B. SIDDAIAH, MAJOR D.NO. 77, 3RD CROSS WEAVERS COLONY VISVESHWARANAGAR MYSURU – 8.
3. M. PRAKASH SON OF MARASIDDAIAH AGED 35 YEARS, D.NO. 1914/2 LINK ROAD, 13TH CROSS ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU CITY.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 1,2 & 3 ARE SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.02.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1023 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.2.2010 in MVC No. 10123 of 2009 seeking enhancement. The accident and the liability are admitted. The question is one of adequate compensation.
2. The appellant was a house wife. The accident took place in the year 2000. The Tribunal held the notional income of the wife at `2,000/- per month. On considering the material on record, we are of the view that the same in inadequate. It is pleaded that she was working as a Certified Public Accountant in the United States of America till 2000. However, there is no material to indicate her income. Therefore, we find it appropriate to hold her notional income at `3,000/- per month. PW.3 - the doctor certified the disability at 30%. However, the Tribunal holds it at 15%. We do not propose to vary the percentage. Hence, the same is left undisturbed. She was aged about 38 years. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘14’. Hence, the loss of future earning is as follows:
`3000 x 12 x 15 x 15% = `81,000/-
3. The amount awarded towards injury, pain and suffering is enhanced by a further sum of `10,000/-. The amount awarded towards medical expenses is appropriate and undisturbed. She was in the hospital for about 16 days. Hence, the incidental charges towards food and nourishment is enhanced to `16,000/-. Due to the injuries sustained, she would be disabled atleast for a period of three months. Hence, loss of future earning during the period of treatment is awarded as follows:
`3,000 x 4 = `12,000/-
4. A sum of `20,000/- is awarded as loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. `15,000/- is awarded towards litigation expenses. Hence, the compensation is enhanced by `83,000/- which will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE nv