Case: Kum Michael Vs. Regional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &amp; Another

1. This petition is directed against the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 15.09.2010 passed in M.F.A. No.7863 of 2004 (MV).2. While hearing the S.L.P. on 06.01.2012 notice was ordered on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the main special leave petition and Dasti service was also permitted. After the service of notice, it was reported that the respondents did not enter appearance. As there was no representation on behalf of the respondents, the record of Courts below was called for. There was delay of 323 days in filing this petition. As the respondents have not bothered to contest this petition, we heard learned counsel for the appellant both on application for condonation of delay as well as on merits. As we are satisfied with the reasons adduced in the application filed in support of the condonation of delay petition, the delay stands condoned.

Court's reasoning:
id ratio was subsequently followed in the decision reported in Ashwani Kumar Mishra V. P. Muniam Babu and others(1999) 4 SCC 22  for enhancing the compensation on account of loss of expectation to life besides disappointment, frustration and mental stress suffered by the claimant therein.13. The said decision was also followed in The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. V. Mahadeva Shetty and anotherAIR 2003 SC 4172 .14. In B.T. Krishnappa V. D.M. United Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.AIR 2010 SC 2630 , where one of us (Hon. Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi) was a party, has held in paragraphs 17 and 18 asLong expectation of life is connected with earning capacity. If earning capacity is reduced, which is the case in the present situation, that impacts life expectancy as well.18. Therefore, while fixing compensation in cases of injury affecting earning capacity the Court must remember:"... No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury so far as money can compensate because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame." [See R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd & others, (1995) 1 SCC 551 :(AIR 1995) SC 755 : 1955 AIR SCW 243) at page 556, para 10.Having bestowed our serious consideration and having noted the various disadvantages suffered by the appellant by virtue of the accident, we are convinced that the appellant is entitled for still higher amount than what has been granted by the Tribunal as well as the High Court on account of pain and sufferings as well as loss of amenities. As held by us earlier, though it will be impossible to make a precise assessment of the pain and suffering of the appellant considering the age at which the appellant met with the accident and the consequent disability and also taking note of the deprivement of better prospects in the life of the appellant due to the physical disability suffered