A V' .[BY"S1€1. SACHIN S. MA'G'ADuIv1, ADV. FOR R1,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE) 21*" DAY OF JANUARY, ZOEU': ~
BEFORE}
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE v. .IAGANNjATII,ANi,'_G.'w. A
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APREALTNOQ, 18:3 /2Q6'=7'{NIV) I
BETWEEN:
MARUTI, S /O LAXMAN JUMIVALLI @;'vDAirIINDE A
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: MILK VENDOR,
R/O BAGALKOT, TQ. EAGAEIKOT, " "
DIST. BAGALKOT. . '
. _ --_ I . ';,_..APPELLANT
(BY SR1. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADA-G'I,;AD_V.DC)-. ' »
AND:
1. NAGARAJ , S ,"O..__NI}i.I.::IKAR;DNV..CH'ONNAD_. »
AGED ABOUT 47 XIEARS,"OCCi'TBUSINESS',Ȥ '
R /0 HNO. __922~,.,UTTAR GA__I,.L:,, CHII:I__<_ODI,s
TO. CHIIIKODI-,..D].:ST. BELGALJM.
2. THE DIVISIONAL IvIA_NAGE_R;
NEW ENDIA ASSURANCE"C0.. LT_D.,
TUPPAD BUNGLOW, OPP. K1TT.F;L COLLEGE,
DIIAR.wA_D. " -
«E .._RESRONDENTS
,SRI _M.:<..SODDAG_AR, ADV. FOR R2.)
-- ."--.I'THV1Su--"APPEA[, ES FILED UNDER SECTION 273(1) OF MV ACT,
AGATNST 'JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/05/2006 PASSED
. IN M'./C <NO.'346/2005 ON THE FIL EOF THE MEMBER, MACT~III,
2 BAGALI<TOT;_ PARTLY ALLOWENG THE CLATM PETITION
"'COMPENSA"TION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.
. _ _ ";TI~IIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
_ COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWENG:
Ix.)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties in respect of the
appeal filed by the claimant seeking (‘3I’ll”1E1I1C€I11’1.€_::I.”l«tTWqf
compensation.
2. Appellants counsel Sri
S.Badawadagi submits that the compernsjatlonllawalrderdllbyi
the Tribunal is on the lower side because the rar.uount giéven
towards loss of future earningll”c.allpa.city under;-l’lthe;§ head of
disability is on the lower: side, as the aprje-lilant hadsustained
laceratedlllirijuiry o§}i:r’– theallleft ellbofilv and contusion on the
abdomenaild Contus«i.orli.olVe;fl the chest region and the Doctor
had put dlsafoilvity betwbeen: 35% to 40% to the lower limb,
tow_ards: __medical llexpenses the amount is on the lower side
having the bills produced and no amount has been
alwar-‘dled loss of amenities. Under the head of pain
and suffeirinlgl, the amount given is also on the lower side.
V’ .. Learned Counsel Sri. M.K.Soudagar for the
. ‘Insurance company submitted that the compensation given
ef
DJ
by the Tribunal is just and reasonable requiring no
enhancement under any of the heads.
4. Taking note of the evidence on record vandlsthe
observation of the Tribunal at page 13 of
relating to the case of this appellant, there
that the appellant had sustained firactiirleivolfggthge’
pubic bone and disability is put at 33310 4o<§/si"iii"s.i":be 'iifiib
and therefore taking disability .192'?/o for ti1eii;vh'oleii'body and
income at Rs.3,000/–v towards loss "of future
earning capacity, the app€§'ll'§1I1ifiAfill entitled to
Rs.73,§}40/if Accident Claims Tribunal has
given Rs'.8,0QO/'–toiiifards.._id'isability, the actual increase will
be Rs.65,4;lU,1:§ binds: this head. Towards pain and
"–..A3iii?erin5g';s R's.,g1O,O(5i(3f¥lm0re is awarded. Likewise, towards
including treatment taken at various
hos_pital,V.coiniieyance, etc, Rs.10,000/– is awarded and
fitowardsv loss of amenities Rs.10,000/– would be adequate
"hliayiingg regard to the disability suffered by the appellant.
Thus, the compensation gets enhanced by Rs.95,__<}40/.
The said amouni will Carry interest at 6%. Award
by aflowing the appeal in part thus.
kmv