High Court Karnataka High Court

Maruti S/O Chimmaji Sathe vs Nagaraj S/O Mallikarjun Chonnad on 21 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Maruti S/O Chimmaji Sathe vs Nagaraj S/O Mallikarjun Chonnad on 21 January, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT EENCH AT DHARWAD T _

DATED TRIS TIIE 2Is= DAY OF JANUARY, 2010  .. 
BEFORE _   
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATH_:ANiV'_I~I.  1%
MISCELLANEOUS PIRST APPI:7A.I.»NO,219£)}éQU'?V{A/IV) 

BETWEEN:

MARUTI, S/O CHIMMAJI SATHE, *  
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: MILK -VENDOR,

R /O BAGALKOT, TQ. BAGALKOT. *

DIST. BAGALKOT. ..   
I  « - .4 V  ....APPELLANT
(BY SR1. SHIVAKUMAR S. I3A'DA'w_AD_AG.1;IAD'V.L}vvI A N

AND:

1. NAGARAJ, S./C) M:AL1,;II<;A.R.IuI~I_ CH._ONI1.AD,'
AGED ABOUTJ47 :J_EAR"S*,..OCC--;jS'I3,%US1N£2SS..
R/O H.NO.3922., UTTAR GALLI, "C_I~II.KKODI 
TQ. CHIR.I4O~DI, DI.ST."E;.EI.GA_UI.4_. ' 

2. THE DIVISIONA1, MAjNAGE_R; 
NEW INDIA ASSURAN-CE"CO.. I:PD.,
TUPPAD BUNGLOW, _ ' -~
OPP. KITTEL COLLEGE1,'DHARwAD.

.. RESPONDENTS

O V'  {BY SR1'. EACHIN S. MAGADUM, ADV. FOR R1.

SP.I_M.I<:.SOuDAGAR, ADV. FOR R2)

.- 'I'HIS=,APPEAL IS PILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OP MV ACT
AGAINST THE--.J1I:DGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/O5/2006 PASSED
IN MVC V.NO;3.3'2/2005 ON THE FILE OP MEMBER, IVIACTII1,
EAGALI<O.T, PARTLV ALLOIWNG CLAIM PETITION EOR COMPENSATION

'SAND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.

O '*-._THIS APPEAL COMING ON POR HEARING THIS DAY, THE

 CO1I_R_T DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



l\J

JUDGMENT

Appellant seeks enhancement of compensati._Qn» Voiigthieu

ground that the Tribunal has failed to awa;-‘d

compensation to him despite the :ii1:5f)e’£lant’–.«havingsuffered”.

an incised wound over right side fofehead, lace_rateri’~Wound’~.

over the forehead and anothergiiila_eeraite’d. iw.Q1_fi_nd’*:Vioiiireri the V

tongue “T” shaped. Re.fe.rring..*t’o these and the
Doctor having deposed it difficult to

chew the food a:ri1id.._cann0ti’speai<;i'p_rope':cl}} and gets pain,

2. the hand learned counsel Sri.

f_ M.K’.’S}oud’ae:ar forl’Lhve…i.n’surance com an ar ued that this is
_ t.,_ y g

‘not°a easel’-whe-re loss of future earning capacity can be

awarded, iaisgthei injury is only lacerated injury and even if

the aippellant finds it difficult to Chew the food, it would not

ii..fafI”eC’t.¢his earning capacity.

%

(av

DJ

3. Taking note of the above submission put for*wa.rd
and the nature of the injuries found on the appe1Ian.t_tasu’tp_er

the wound Certificate, I am of the View that _

where amount can be increased under the heads Aand

suffering by a fU.I’th€§’ sum of Rs.1:5,OQ-On,/’Q1′,

expenses Rs.4,000/– and .»’t0_war(i s,_ ‘loss fitnenlities

Rs.20,000/–. Thus c0mpent’S’a.tionV gets tenhaviglced by
Rs.39,000/– in all. ‘i’I1Ae “;eaid–‘_VAanaen:f1_t,t2ifiEI Carry interest at

6%. .V vv –.

Amount ‘1n0dified”tUy aliqwjng the appeal in part

thus.

g: g
‘ -‘ ‘2 can

54} j’

‘5″

‘.kIn'{r~– .