MFA N0.13167 of 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF ~
BEFORE W ' ,a;;. .
THE HON'BLE
NHSCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No, '1"31v67./:2{);0a7. _(MV1 VA
BETWEEN: A %
Shri. Balappa Shattapp.a§}?{a§,agi; 1
Age: 32 years, Occ: Mason,' 'V "
R/0 Arabhavi, new at Kakaiti, " 1 ..
Taluk and Di;"st'1'"ie:;.:_1; ':' Bel_._gaL1ai--590'O_1 ...APPELLANT
(By Sri. Advocate]
A N D
1.
Shri Nag_appaV’Pa’tiL A
Agemajof (_e0rrect”agé not known}
0430: Agriculture_, 1’/0 Niravanatti,
Po Sti»–.’Hidka1dam¥’59 1 107,
A ;VV’Ta1u.1;’i*{uakkeri«591309,
A VDi$”Lri’et.; “bef1.gaum–59OO 16.
2. The Insurance Co. Ltd.,
through its Divisional Office,
A IX/Iaruti Gaiii, Be1gaurn–590016.
_ Reptd. By its Branch Manager.
MFA N0.l3l67 of 2007
3. Shri Rajesh Chandrakant Hirembigar,
Age: Major (correct age not known,
Occ: Business, r/0 H.No.22l/ 102,
Near Siddeshwar Temple,
Siddeshwar Nagar, Gokak–59l307, _ ” ._
District: Belgaurn–5900l6. ‘…RESPO.?-lD’EN¢TS.,
(By Sri. L.B.l\/Iannoddar, AdVocat:exforA.iR§ i _
Sri. P.G.Chikkanarag’un.d,.<_Advo'r:_at'e for,R3']A
This miscellaneous firsta'ppeal_is filed under
Section 173(1) of the M;o't0r<.v'Vehi.c1eVs,Act against the
judgment and award dsated. O5A.O,9§2'OO"7[passed in MVC
No.985/2006_..o'r1_thefifile of P.rinci.pal'jDistrict Judge 85
Member, Belgaum, partlyviallowing the claim
petition for co_n1p'e'n'satiofn,_and_,seeking enhancement for
con1per1_5§tio.1.'.;"~ 13. ~
'Iziivscéliatlleoltls'—first appeal coming on for
orders tlzisday', .the;'Co'ur't'd=elivered the following:
'f,rgg§GMENT
appie'a;1«i.S___disposed of finally after hearing the
1earn.edv.,co1;_1nsel_ for the parties.
..5appellant's grievance is that the Motor
x__Accide~nt';Claims Tribunal erred in deducting 1/ 3"' flora
in
MFA NO.13157 of 2007
calculating the 'loss of future earning capacity'_,.___ and
secondly, the disability for the whole body is
7% which is on the lower side having
medical evidence of the of'
amenities of life' no amount
also towards 'loss of
As far as the liability pvieixiviiof the policy
being package policy,iithe_V cannot
escape its A it i V
3. appellant referring to
the above for enhancement of
compensatioi’1,, Whei=eas.._i.Ithe submission of the learned
couIi’sel__i’for the’2??.2’espondent–insurance company is
‘thiat–vwi1ile~ ti1e’i«i..ability is admitted in View of the package
po1_1¢yb¢ifiig_i:;sued as per Ex.Rl, however, the disability
irupercentagei taken by the Tribunal is just and proper
equijring no modification.
9
MFA N0.E3E67 of ZGG7
4. in the light of the above submissions ijmade,
insofar as the liability is concerned, the
package policy and the insurance ”
admitted the liability, the iitiiziil ye:
insurance company but notion owner
As far as the quantum is conic’ei*nVed,V” rgegard to
the fact that the fracture of left
ankle malleolusand contusion
of left ankle percentage for
the at 14% instead of
7%, personal expenses is
not permiVsisibl.e. as towards ‘loss of future earning
cap»aig:.itvyA’; Vvappe’llan_t.vwill be entitled to a sum of
‘R:s’.’8.O1,6.{}Oi[‘+.iiri–.place of Rs.25,200/–. Thus, the increase
uiidier will be Rs.55,440/~. Towards ‘loss of
‘;_pameI’1itie’s of life’ Rs.15,000/– is awarded and towards
“of income during the treatment period’ Rs.3,000/–
iséawarded. Thus, the compensation on the whole gets
{”
$2/J
MFA §\IG.l3167 of 2007
enhanced by Rs.’?’3,440/–. The said amount will “carry
interest at 6% per annum. Award is acc’or_di,iig1y
modified both in respect of the liability and *
Kn1s*