High Court Karnataka High Court

B G Manjunath S/O. Late Gangamma … vs Guruthippesha on 24 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
B G Manjunath S/O. Late Gangamma … vs Guruthippesha on 24 November, 2008
Author: Deepak Verma K.Ramanna
Herc Honda Pmprietorr
Of Manoj Elcctmnics
Nayakanahatti
C-hallakere Taluk

2 Divisional Manager

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Divisional Ofiice

ENKAY Complex

Kcshavapura «V   M, «. 
Hubli.    V'  .Ré'E3pQ:_:;de:imA

{By Sri P B fiéjfi; Adv :5; E352":

This =:'appt:*aI"_1ii1dé: 'Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the j11d~g;§g4:nt  deitcd 17~5~20{)4 passed in
MVC  orifihia iik:"ofigé1i'12eéi Civii Judge (Sr.Dn) and
MA(3'l';_ Cha1Iékerx:,"«33arfl3a".___a£1o§Ving the claim petition for
compefisaiion andfss:;ekixig__crLhancemcnt of compensation.

T1115'   far hca:n11' g this day, DEEPAK
VERM,A ., dtaiisfercci  following: -

 ..... 

VM:’_j..Siddappa, learned counsel appeared for

Sri P.B.R’aju, icamcd counsel appeared for

1’¢$]§}()}.’;Lf,V1ifi14.’-Q. With oonscnt, arguments heard and mcords

k%§¢k%:>”cL1″*ié*+?6d-

2. The appellant, aged about 30 years, an agricultmfist

by profession, met with motor mad accident on 3–I1–2002.

W

While he was ttavelljng as pillion rider in motor

No.K’A-16~¥{—2399 driven by its rider in a meme

manner, it met with accident. 11: -I

fallen on the ground from mototr

head injuries. Initially he was :5 finm VV

where he was shifted Vti:,_Bapuji” oevanagérc Where
he was Heated by {Scum Surgeon.

According to doséfivr, is to the extent
of 45% as account of injuries

sustained -.

3. Agpefiafii VVttxeziefc§;ife fi3i'”«’3§”€fonst1ained to file MVC

No.38/-200(5). ..befo1e .’V’Clj:{ex1Iakere which passed an

ozi:e’– 1’7’»+’i”:~~S2\’)(}¢1>, a sum of Rs.2,74,181/~

togefixcf 80,4; p.a. from the time of claim

ia. ly paid. The appeal is by the claimant

-.V.j.Ti_f§z:*.4_’emancei:;eAr’;t, precisely on the gonna that amount

meagre and low and deserves to be enhanced.

Respondent-I — owner of the motor cycle was placed

‘ ‘exfiafie before Tribunal as also in this appeal. Learned

W

ccmnsel for respondent —- 2 Sri P B Raju strcmwusiy
contended bcfon: us that looking to the evidence of dpctor

and that of the appellant, no further amount is

be awarded and mmmnmfivn directed to be ”

just and proper. It is not disputed befom ‘A u

it stands proved from the cvidcnc:e:.Aave’§iLahI6T’mi’

accident was caused due t0 r:s.s_h ofv . L’

motor cycle by its rider, _v_1’cs1.$oi2d.’Vt:.§£1t $10.1 and
insured with I’cspondé121:..TN9.;33. not in dispute

that 1 appcilant had sustained head
injmics;Q1éz:cby,,_.I:1€. h§§é.–Erich reduced to physical .disability

of ‘Fliiis ~ ;-_%i..;ands pmvcd from evidence of

of insurance company to pay

cfimgigtnsafion is also not in dispute.

‘X had the advantage of watching demeanor

of the” xaficncsscs, whflc doing so, it has barn; obsnrvcd that

‘ ‘ examined as P.W.4, was not able to answer to fht:

ciucsfions which were putforth to him by Txtibuzxal. Not only

this, he was not abk to rcact to any question putforth to him

“73

oooobyooofifié &_Cm:_

Apparently, we have no objection for monthly ‘V of

appellant at Rs.3,0{}O/– as no evidence was

claimant to show that he was training .,

that.

7. However, we are of the oofigiicmd op5;oioIi’ thfiaf’

Vi€W of Doctofs end” once, the type’ “of the V

appellant together his of earning
capacity. has to be Jar; inf; person: who is

suffering fnon; ofizimoiofrfl oannot do labour

work ztgzor type of work, and his earning
capacit§?’:$f_o1I.1d hr:_.’tcf”aImost 100% but we deem it fit
anti pmpor disability at 45% as assessocl
committed no error in asserssing his

:€;R$..3,00(}/- per month. But his functional

had wrongly been taken at 30%, it should have

A “ii mat less than 45% as has been door! by

‘ Satyanarayana. We accordingiy do $0. Thus, amount to

“V5

deem it proper to awarti him Rs.25,0{}0/-»

meeiical treamnent. Thus, appeI!§a1’t “wollipi Eifgfifléa

compensation of Rs.4,S6,38 1 / ~» .

12. Thus, apma} is

The amount awarded §¥.:ands:_ h0:ki§iI§._Att1£::EItiI1 that
appellant shall be ‘fatal amount of
Rs.4,56,38I/– amount would
also carry firom the: date of
pet:ition_§;1{ izcV#:;és.’% ?§§é§io<§ndcnt–2 is granted six
weeks amount of compensation with
intcrr::3t. ..}'24<i::=V:V;;\<)'r;.a:.i«\-§=;¢§.t" Jfishall pay cost of litigation

throtgghqut. V fscTis fixed at Rs.3,€K)0/~– if certified.

" V.    stand adjusted.

Sd/1}
Judgg

361/'3
Judgé

. 'tsp