I
IN THE HIGH {EOURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED Tuis THE -4th DAY 0:» NOVEMBER,' .2308'
BEFORE { k
THE HGN'B3:,E MR. JUSTICE .;B»;SR&EE§I§'i*QP;SE'.GC3WflAV' % F. %
M.F.A. N0. 10109 £21' gas? (MVQA
EETWEEN: =
Sn' KJK. Nazccr Pasha
S/0 Amecr Jan, .
Aged about 37 years, _
Residing at Noor Nagar, ' V
K0131' Town. _ '
-- I ...A?PELI..Al'~l'i'
(By Sri N, Adv.)
HE
V' __ 1-Li Vcn}§ at65i'1appa
44
« , _ S ,1? (2. Kfankatarazrlanappa
VR,J'_at Eviasmcnahalfi Vii];-xgfi,
Vfilagalaburra Post, Srinivasapaura Taluk,
'K01e£.r Disfiict.
M] s. New India Assurance
Cempany Ltd.,
D.O. XI, Tower Biock,
Unity Building, J.C1. Road,
Bangalnre 560 002
Rep. by its Manager.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sffi CLN. Rajendra, Adv. for R 2)
“)
4.:
Tms MFA 911.23 ugs 173(1) 0? MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AW’AR{} DATED 15.12.2096 PASSED IN have NO. 7136;’20{}i-3 on THE
FELE 09 THE ADDL. JUDG 21, COURT OF SMALL cans 13$, MEMBER MACT,
METROPGLETAN AREA, BANGMQRE , {sec}; r»zoo.5; PARTLYRLLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATEON any; SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT 0? CQMPENSATEON.
‘PRES APPEAL comma ON FOR ADMISSEQN; :._T’é{:s §’1:.a{Y:;v…?n3,E
C€.¥UR’I’,£)ELiVEREID THE FOLLOWING: ‘ —
JUDGM%flTfl
This appeal is f11e;<:1 i;.'1_e: V' '#4:'-:4:-:,'}':'"i.=r1g
enhancement of coInpeI1sat,'it31:i;*%.
V'Bi*i(:f.f§é'-;s,<;:t$" as fellows:
VTh§at <V:m. V,–Whi1e: the appellant was going
tswaxfds Ciiriyappafifiriégtks factory by walking an the mud
911 a goods temp beaflng mgistraticxn
came from the opposite dimction in a
Iiegligcnt masrmer and dashed against the
Aappaéihgpfit as a msult ha fell dawn and sustamed bodily
injiiries. He filed a claim petition seekixlg compenaation of
_.§?s.}.5,0£},{)£)O/-. The Tribune} by the impugacd judgment
3113 award dated 15.12.2006 awarded him cumpensation
ef Rs.1,94,{)()0/– with intemst at 6% p.a. fi'<3!I1 the ciatt: cf
petition till the: date: of deposit. Aggiesveci said
award the appellant has pI'Cff:IT(t':(1 this
enhancement of camprmsatian.
2. A5 tlrxerct is no dispuiéblllll
sustained by thii’. appfifiamz in all’13;1lfi-or
no appeal is filed ciflmr by “V”‘:;=.,iV”<}£%fa1e15' of the
ofiiznding vehicle Tribunal on
the issue thatfzhe due to the rash
and ihe ofi'-ending vehicle and the
liability Elf flifi Company, the only issue requimd
t«:fs 'lubej.(3-:);1si.€l'é1"ed____éby me is whether the compensation
' ivbjsfthc Tribunal is just and pmper or calls for
. 'clihanéfifsierit.
A ‘ll’ After haaring the learned Counsel for the parties,
lpcrusing their judgment and award I am of the opinion that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and
proper and is on the lower side and flmrefcre it is required
ti} be: enhanced.
$6
restricfion about 20 decree and stated t;hat.j”i'”1t3;–.’ ibcd
rest fer a period (if one ymr and not «to
out.
5. Learned Counsel for Siibifttiits that in
spite of the above évidencés .l>efore the Tribunal it
has committed’ erjmgr . ifinly Rs.45,0{){}/*
{awards /» towards medical
by the appellant
i}Z”iC}i_1$i’1’§ and crrcd in taking 35%
disability ta fihe Whole body for the purpose of
A¢3;¢u;;m;gg&1oss lfuturc income. He. further contended
has stated that the appellant has
disability to a particular limb and30°/<3 to
..th_c iailiiale body. Since the appellant is 3, driver and by
' '''._V'ifi;'i'€,i.:i<: of the mantra of irijuzies Silfitaillfld by him he is not
" – "iii: a pasition my drive the veliiclfi. Therefore the functional
disabiiity has to be taken at 100% and cfimpenmfiarl has
to be awardad actitortiirlgly.
%
6. Per contra, 16331336 Cg-iihsali far
Company submits that thg Ei:.¥V3.Ifié\-‘j1i.’i$VV;i1__}:S
and pmper and it does ‘Hi:
submits tha*:;i5g?ra» while
awarding conipczisatirfii futtrre income is
perfezctiy 15; interference. He
aiso towards less of
hicoriiiieiiduxririg is propsr and it: does not
caii Tlic appellant was treated as
inpatient 4i’0r_:’csr1.c’.:’– riioritifi and discharged with an advise to
‘~ ., Ac(r=:ititt1’t1e”f«;:i1o\iiiti1§”i.reat:I;z1€:I1t. The doctor who treated the
in his cvidfitrice that the appellant is
ilflt its ~a_ufpOsifion 1:0 coniinue his pmfession as driver.
AA Conéidéfing {ha same I deem it just and proper to take the
caused to the; whole body as 2 1.66′?fo mundfid
11$ 22% (65% X 1/ 3) and loss of future income has to be
Caiculateci accordingly. The appellant has prodtmed
ciriving iiccnce finrn which it is evident that he was
%
fmm
the compensation already awarded by
interest at 6% p.a. fmm tha da*£€:*’0f f1zé:i’.dé.%tc V01′
actual payment.
7. Accordingly juitigncnt and
award of the Tribun:;1 exteut. The
rcspondent:.Iz1$}3;ran€§§§; to deposit the
compens-3i§£§12. iétfifgcgisst within two months
{ha datéfaf :3;t:op3I award.
N0 order as t0″’30’Sit,’s.- é
% Sd/-_-E
Iudgmé