E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010
BEFORE A "
TI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANISA' T': "
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL B{9.6379f'2Q ()6: '(NITI1 _: " ~ A.
BETWEEN:
Mr. VENKATESH S /0. GOPALRAQE
DHARWADKAR,AGE:30 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND. POULTRY"BUSINESS-,-_
R/OKAMADHENU, A 5
TQKALGHATGI, D1STR1CT: A'DHARwAD;' j _
" ._ A ' :..APPELLAN'I'
(BY SR1. LCRESH AND RH. PAT1L,ADVS.)
W ~SRI..v'R1--';M:A-KANTH, S /0. HONAPPA SHETTY
AAGEE' OCC: BUSINESS,
R/o.'Cze11TRGAR ONI, KALGHATGI,
~E:ST:ER;ARwAD, AT 85 POSTKALGHATGI
(OWNER OF' KA--25/3699)
" 'ENITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY,
* .13? ITS;D1v1S1oNAL MANAGER, ENKAY--COMPLEX
KESHWAPUR, HUEL1--sS0023
(INSURER OF KA-25/3699)
E
Si,
{Q
3. GOPALRAO NARASIMHA DHARWADKAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O.BENGERLKESHWAPUR
VENKATE${COLONY,HUBb58WfiB.
4. SR1. SHYAM. S/O. LAXMAN HAZNAKAJJSILA, {4 " 4
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF'KA¥-25/36.98,'~, ~. "
R/A:cH1TRAGHAR ONI, I<A'Lc}HAT'G.I,'"
DISTDHARWAD,R/O.KAL'GHATGI. V.
. _.v .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1. LAXMAN B. Ix/IANI:OT%DAIjéA, AIDV.~..__FC")'RT R2)
MFA FILED 'LI,/_S.-- 1',%_3(1)§'OE~.IvIizf'--A.QT AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT A.N=D AWARD __D-AzTEDij".14.2.2006 PASSED IN
MVC NO. 125/--V20O/{ON THE' FILE THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE '~§S'R.DN¢A;}'-- AND ADDITIONAL MACT, HUBLI,
PARTLY ALIJ0W'I7'gV.«} ~C'LLAI1\/I PETITION FOR
cOMPENsATIO_N' .A1\I'D.V'*sEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATIONI. ' ' I
THIS JAPi5IE3AVL"COEI'/IIE\I.:C} ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, TH-E O_OU_RT D"E«IIvERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
“The cIVaiTf1a1§3tVVin MVC NO125/2004 is before this Court
4seeking’enf1§_1nOement Of the compensation as against the
«mix: ‘aivarded by the Tribunal.
%.
A
Lo.)
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and
perused the appeal papers.
3. The fact that the claimant had suffered K
the accident, which occurred on
dispute. The nature of injuries suffzeredipiby it«he’i’c~lai1naVnt’iis
also Ploved by the medical evidence éiildbit is S\e’¢fi1.Ttl1at’3*.theii’
claimant had suffered fracture ofiiexft hurne~ruseol0rn1r1inuted
fracture. Though the do_ct_or istatiedpthe disability at
15%, the Tribunal was ofpppthe the claimant
had contended tii:at…Vh’epw«a_s” partner in a business and no
loss of future earning “hadi’o.eien proved, no amount could be
ranted’ ‘bv. calculatin “the same. However, a sum of
in isawarded under the said head by the Tribunal.
To shortfall under the said head, a further
V sum of R3ilG,”O00/» is awarded. It is further seen that no
i’arVnoi.1nt has been awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ and as
a: sum of Rs.l5,000/v» is awarded. To make good the
g.
*u
shortfali under the other heads, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is
awarded.
4. Therefore, the claimant in all is entit1ed..’to:”««the
enhanced compensation of Rs.35,000/– with ~
same rate and manner as awarded by the d’_’Fhe=_ Ki
enhanced amount with interest shalfl
insurance Company within a ofdsix aveeksdrom ‘the
date of receipt of copy of this orderAL”»«.O’np’ deposit, the entire
amount shalt be disbursed toethe.t_o§i;;aivma;;it;.:A .
In te1’rns__ot .ahove<,.:th,e appeal stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
Giff”
t~ . peas gvaplp)/W