1. Nagesh Tr E. A' i'
R/-Q. Ka1awa1a;1'o'ddi village.
' " 'f"fq,_ nDist E Raichur.
'° ' V -2:.' Sliriiiiva
" /"6 Niarayanappa, Age : 45 years,
V V Kalawaladoddi Village,
IN THE PHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUH BENCH AT GULBARGA E
DATED: THIS THE 24"-I DAY OF FEBRUARYV.,'V2:0_4'1_iOV
BEFORE i"
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE HULUVADI _
M.F.A. NO.30228 OF 2'O1Q".{MV}_ 'W. A V
MEA.No.316_75 OFTZQQS . 2
IN M.F.A. NO.30228 or zoibfi-ycrv} V. '
BET'/VEEN
Goverdhan reddy
S / 0 Basireddy, Age 25 years', .. 7
OCc:Studer1t,« "" "fir:
R/0. D. Rampur V_i.l]aVg"e';V 'V . _
Tq. 81 Dist : Rai'eh1}:_r. ' _ V : Appellant
(By Sri. Prakash Séelir 'AdVv«3eatbeV]
Av EEEEE
S /0. }3h'e-emé1p;j;3»a, V '
"Age : 26»._years, : Driver,
is Business 8: Owner of Vehicle.
'$6'
. Padma
l V. ,O'ee zlwofking as Bill Collector,
' V.,I'1':..G1 DATED
24.04.2008 PASSED IN. MvC'.NO,,40_;i./0'? ON THE FILE
OF MACT AND FAST"TR:ACE€.,C_OURT" 11 AT RAICHUR.
PARTLY Atigowiivo fl?HE«. "'CLAI_1\r:' PETITION FOR
COMPEN_S..ATI€jN--.'_ ~A£\_113 A'»iZARL)ING AMOUNT OF
RS. 1,58, ti?00:/9,W1TH,'INTFRF3S'F, AT 6% FA.
IN M1%*A,lN'O::i3_V1E§%:'5' o:F.,'2000'"{Mm
BE'£Vl7I3EN:l ~ V
S,'O_ Ranga Reddy,___Age : 44 years,
"Tq.*l& Dist :,7Raichu1'. : Appellant
(BS1 Pfakash Yeli, Advocate)
lgl. Nagesh S/O Bheernappa
Age : 26 years, Occ : Driver,
' ,,CouI'-t_d~eliVered the following:
consent Of the learned counsel on both sides, the
lfisame is heard On merits and disposed of by this
R/o. Kalawaladoddi village,
Tq. & Dist : Raichur.
2. Shrinivas
S/O Narayanappa, Age 2 45 years,
Occ : Business 81 Owner of Vehicle,
R/O. Kalawaladoddi village,
Tq. 81 Dist : Raichur.
3. The Divisional Manager, _ ;
United India Insurance Co. Iitdfig 0'
Divisional Office, ,
V.V. Sukhani Complex,
ls' Floor, Gandhi Chowk, _
Raichur. ' ',§€;';3epa;,4dent*5
[By Sri. RWS & Notice to
R1 81 is4dijsp--ensed_ . ,
,T.I1IS'~MFA.:E_I_LE.D' sq/3 "_17.3,(I_),.,OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT :fAN1:1-":_ AWARD DATED 24.()4.2008 PASSED IN
MVc:.NO..403/07IjONITHs'F1LE- OF MACT AND FAST TRACK,
COURT A II AT,R'AjIcHU_R»,«.I>ARTLy ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITIO'N.__FOR COMPENSATION AND AWARDING AMOUNT
OF_P.S.44,200[; WITI~l 'INTEREST AT 6% RA.
E5'Th"eAse Mlifllsdcoming on for Orders, this day, the
JUDGMENT
D ~. Though the matters are listed for orders today,
W
Judgment. For the purpose of convenience, the
parties would be referred to, as they are referred to in
the Claim petition. Since these two appeals to
the same accident and arose out of
Judgment, they are elubbedpandl’
disposed of by this common
2. l have Advocate for
claimants ari’d::.;,S:1_*i. counsel for
3%” and perused the
« ln’ the claimants during
enqu-.i.r_y befo.re’the T’ri1oiinal have established the facturn
0 thatvlmhlad occurred on 23.01.2007 due to
I iras-h negligent driving of the Tractor <3: Trailer
No-..KAr¥3€fil"TA*325 and 326 and its insurance coverage
nWi__th the respondent No.3. Thus, the only point that
"zarisjes for my consideration in these two appeals is as to
W
whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable and it requires enhancement
3. MFA.No. 30228/2010 is filed by th¢~.ihj.uredw
Claimant who suffered six injuries in all, as :noted§”iny:’t’he’v,
wound Certificate Ex.P.14 and <i_pinedu';
that above injuries are fresh and giiie"vous' in–~nature
be caused by violence andgrou. The
claimant tookjatifeatm-enth. to 15.02.2007
i.e., for i00jj::v,j:};a.i§.1%,iis%£hé[fféiischa1*ge summary
involving mid shaft of
U1naf:.an':j' Certificate coupled with
oral evidence (PW.3] who examined the
injtired avithfrefemnvce to Xwray report would reveal that
' 'disability about 20% to whole body. As
was a student, the Tribunal has not
awarded any compensation towards 'loss of future
.earning capacity'. – However, having regard to the
nature of injuries, period of treatment and
6
consequential permanent physical disability suffered by
the claimant, while retaining the Compensation awarded
by the Tribunal on several heads, it would be
proper to award a sum of Rs.35,000″/’;=—-
‘permanent physical disability’. ‘ 1.
MFA.N0.30228/2010 would A’e11ti(1ed..’_
compensation of , 700,./_ — ‘ “against’ 0
Rs. 1,58,700/– awarciegi by..the.lv’_l’rib’u_nal.ll ‘
4. iiiVy,’lM3rA.jN§;3’15’:?5′;’20O9 is filed by the
injuifetlalelainlaiiltl.iwhloflstaftereldv three injuries in all, as
notedlinp the vxplulndlCerlt’ifi’i:ate Ex.P.7 and the doctor has
opinecl th4at,inju’ry’N012 is grievous in nature, as there
of rnuafcillary bone and orbital wall on right
.0 The claimant took treatment from
23-,0ll-._.02007A to 29.01.2007 i.e., for 06 days. The
as t?:i_edie’a.l evidence reveals that there was a fracture of
flrnaiiillary bone and orbital wall on right eye lateral wall.
“l’i’he compensation awarcied by the Tribunal towards
‘nourishment. food and attendant charges’ appears to
be on the lower side and a sum of Rs.l0,000/–___ under
the said head as against. Rs. 1,200/~. Having’ to
the nature of injuries, period of treatment’,:*-it
just and proper to award a .sum_o1’T_” “as
against Rs.3,000/– towards ‘pain ‘lVsulfi”e_:fin.g”s’. ”
compensation awarded other
heads is just and not call for
interference; /2009
would of Rs.64,969/M
hevlvenhanced Compensation
would” domes Hence, I pass the
followtingzill A V l
” ‘” …… .. O R D E R
appeals are allowed in part.
ii)’ modification of the Judgment and award
dated 24.04.2008 passed by the MACT and
Fast Track Cou1’t–II, Raichur in MVC. No.
404/2007 {l\/IFA.No.30228/2010}, the
We
iii]
* eiihanced -~ ,_ ” a CO1’I1p€1’1Sa1′.iO1’1
compensation payable to the claimant
appellant is enhanced from Rs.I,E38.7’h0O/ to
Rs.1,93,700/- with interest at
annum from the date of petition
of realization. The enhanced c’orjnpe’nsationV”
comes to Rs.35,000}’-.. ”
The compensati-on=.payab1.e to the”‘c1’ain’i’ant in’ V
MFA.No.3ie.7’5/tgoog 1ii{i»n;ci’.$0.403/2007) is
eitihjjaiiced’ fair: Rté’;v§é§¢i1-,2_Q:O/- to Rs.65,000/m
3: Vintereéitvteat’-.6%”per annum from the date
tghewdate of realization. The
comes to
” as;2o,8o0’/§.
jhe Std’i’eSp01’1dent–insurance company shall
hide-‘posit the enhanced compensation with
accrued interest within three rnonths from
today.
9
v) The Judgment and award of the Tribunal as
regards deposit is Concerned, the same
remained unchanged.
VR