Smt. V. Mangaleswari Vs. V. Balakrishna Reddy & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2612 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.3277 of 1999)
Petitioner: Smt. V. Mangaleswari
Respondent: V. Balakrishna Reddy & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2612 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.3277 of 1999)
Judges: S.B. MAJMUDAR & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 13, 2000
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Compensation – Four fingers lost – Finding of fact that injured used to earn substantial amount by playing Veena. Held that lump- sum of Rs. 40,000/- in addition is granted.(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 – the Insurance Company which is the main contesting party finally in this appeal.
3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as the claimant because of the motor accident has lost four fingers of the left hand, the award of Rs.60,000/- by way of compensation granted by the High Court by enhancing the compensation of Rs.30,000/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ap-pears to us to be on a little lower side. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company states that the Appellant was not earning anything by playing Veena and it was only her habit. However, the Tribunal itself held that by playing Veena the Appellant was earning substantial amount and this is the reason why the High Court thought it fit to enhance the compensa-tion to Rs.60,000/-. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-In-surance Company submitted that if the amount of compensation is to be further enhanced, it may be a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- and not more. Considering all the facts and circum-stances of the case, we deem it fit to grant an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- by way of lump sum without any interest which would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by grant of an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- in lump sum. This amount shall be deposited in the Tribunal within twelve weeks from today for being withdrawn by the Appellant on furnish-ing due identity. The award passed by the Tribunal and as en-hanced by the High Court will stand further enhanced to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 – the Insurance Company which is the main contesting party finally in this appeal.
3. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as the claimant because of the motor accident has lost four fingers of the left hand, the award of Rs.60,000/- by way of compensation granted by the High Court by enhancing the compensation of Rs.30,000/- granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ap-pears to us to be on a little lower side. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company states that the Appellant was not earning anything by playing Veena and it was only her habit. However, the Tribunal itself held that by playing Veena the Appellant was earning substantial amount and this is the reason why the High Court thought it fit to enhance the compensa-tion to Rs.60,000/-. Learned Counsel for the Respondent-In-surance Company submitted that if the amount of compensation is to be further enhanced, it may be a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- and not more. Considering all the facts and circum-stances of the case, we deem it fit to grant an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- by way of lump sum without any interest which would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by grant of an additional amount of Rs.40,000/- in lump sum. This amount shall be deposited in the Tribunal within twelve weeks from today for being withdrawn by the Appellant on furnish-ing due identity. The award passed by the Tribunal and as en-hanced by the High Court will stand further enhanced to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
