High Court Karnataka High Court

Prabhu K R S/O Ramakrishnaiah vs Prakash S/O Kondaiah on 24 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Prabhu K R S/O Ramakrishnaiah vs Prakash S/O Kondaiah on 24 May, 2011
Author: K.L.Manjunath And H.S.Kempanna
Ex.)

MFA FILED U/S 1173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22/O6/200$  IN
NIVC 330.196/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE: 

JUDGE {SR.DN) 82 MEMBER, 
RAMANAGARAM. PARTLY ALLOWING THE'. Cmgim }?>E:':"iT'i£>_:\_; 
FOR COMPENSATION AND seexege EN£imeC;:éryi'r:N:Ij Q_F'~.

COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON Fee;  §::2AR1Nd}ni:s._VV

DAY, KEMPANNA J., nELNe:_1~§Ei._p "me F'0LL:§wf1§:QV:: 
JWMUDGMENE       

This appeal     eeeking for
Enhancement efv  of the
injuries  that took
place JQ_n__   on Vandaraguppe
 _i1'n}:e1x'1n:g the motor eyeie bearing
Regn.NeZ'I{€{\~O5¥}:{';";z'V.j5  by the first respondent

an»d:e:.inS'L1red  second respondent at the relevant

' p'c~i_1fn ..Qf~1Ei1<\:;e; __

 'Tribunal by ixie impugned judgment and

 .Aa:warzdx.da{ed 226.2905 has awarded total eernpensatien

' '~_V<:;f--%"L(}1,C}€}Q/» under various heads with interesi ai 6%

 "  frenl the date ef the eeiiéien iii} reaiieaiidn and

fdfihee  saddied éhe §§a'%:::iEi%:y G? gagzinené Q?

*1



Q41

Compensation on the second resp0ndent~insu-tatxce

eempany.

3. The appeiiant»e}aimant being  

quantum of Compensation is in zififjeai bef0re_tti.i$ V<:'(}t;1I't';';

4. Sri.S.P.Shanka:r,_ 1ea1*n__e'd__ ser1 i_o:"~ e<)@11*1sei~.VV

appearing for the appellanteleiimant   the V'

Tribunai has erred    eémrfiéensurate
compensation to the  heads despite
the claimant"'A;».t:}1}atrt;i1g§;  evidence
supporteift itzfttzer submitted that it
has    of the claimant for
awardytfig 'juet  towards loss of amenities

and -it has .,r1ot7' axézartied any compensation towards

 fVu.'t't1re7" tees of income. Therefore, a Case for

 .e':1_h:i.1*ie:e.:f1e3E};t.-i's made out.

~.  Fer eontra, Learned Cotmsei appearing for the

 »eef1festing«insurer supported the impugned judgment

end award paeeed by the Tribunal.



.5. Taking the rivai eubmiseions into eej:e'isi<iera':52'§_)r1~e

and the papers that are made avaiiable,~*:h4§?if.peirfJt_that--, 

3.fiS€S {Of Gill' COI1Sid€I"8i§{}11 1S2

'Vfhether the appe11ar2t_--e1aii:1A2:1i1t hae'V."rrfra'de 

Case fer enhancement?'

6. Facts

are elaimant having
met with a.C(:id@1)1t§ :{_reVetment that he
has taken. in dispute. It
is the___eeze.eV

Having determined his ineein’eV:_at_» the
claimant would be of ?20,000/«
[$4,000 X 5) tewarde_._.less {hiring iaidaip

period.

The be considered is what
is be awarded towards
futurevviiolsss Cf evidence on record? more

partieL1iai*Iy.i of V medical officer, reveals that the

eiaiiiiiiagnit has eiisteined permanent physical disability of

‘limb to an extent of 60% and permanent

e[is;’éLE:*>i1ii:«}.,ifiii/;w.e:; an extent of 20% to the whole bedy.

Aeeepting the sarnes as his income has been determined

A ~ as he is aged 24 years, the multipiier that

‘becomes appiieabie weuid be $8 and therefere, taking

all these faefi/ere imie eeneideraiieii, we are ef ihe ‘view

ihai, the eieiinziirzi is entiiiieci to as sun} ef ?i,?2iSG€)/~

\ 7/
3

(34,000 X 12 X 18 X 20/100) towards 103$ ofVf:1 ture

i}T”1C€)1’fl€.

Thus’ the claimant in all would be €90′

sum of 33,42,800/~ with inter6§e1:éit’6§r€’q

date of the petition till realisatiofi.

with interest at 6% p.a. date” of paetittion 1:111

realisation awarded Hvenhaneed
compensation eomes at 6%
p.a. from til} realisatien.

Aeeerdinggyff efieeeed in part.

foregeing reasons, we
proceed fee’

{DRDER

A ” -. is allowed in part.

A 2) impugned judgment and award of the
TI;ibu,f18} is modified and the

V appellant/claimant is awarded enhanced
compensation ef ?2,4§_;8C10/ fl with interest at

6% per annum frem the date ef petiiiorz till
realisaéiiezz ever anei above tfze eempeesaiien

évhei hag ‘Seer: avzarcieé ‘$3? ihe T§f§31i}”}E3§.