IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15111 DAY OF sEPrEMB§:--R kidds I *
PRESENT;
THE HON'BLE MR.Jus'r14dE V.'§};~SABE~IAI-fI'T:VV '
._
THE HON'BLE MR.JuSri1(§E.%3.3ATYANAx§AYA;NA
1% MFA N5.
cofifiecflecl "Ache I'
cJr\cmn\om rrmim
Aw {WW8 BETWEEN:
/"""'/w/W" UNITED IND;A'. INsi1§;RAN.r:;E co LTD
<5'""5" DHAR'%§fAD'BR1¥?$€§H',T§{RE}U(}H ITS REGIONAL
30%? OFFICE, # SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING
M.G. ROAD BANGAi'.QRE*1.
REP BY ITS" DEPLYFY l~.*_lAP€AGER
13.3, ;CH§iUASA . _ '
. 'A 11111 APPELLANT
A {By Sri.,B'{}§3:EETHARAMA RAO, ADV., )
HEIDI': I I I
f I zB'ASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
'I S/O CHANNABASAPPA BELLAD
ADVOCATE,
R] 0 BUDIKQPPA
SAUNDATTI TQ BELGAUM DISTRICT
2 MAHADEV N KOTRI
MAJOR
R] O MUMMIGATTI
DHARWAD TALUK AND DISTRICT
RESWNDENTS-1V1V't" é:Df'fthésA.__jl.1dgfiiéDt and award dated 12.11.2004
Qidditional MACT, Sanndatti challenging
of compensation.
AA The facts leading to this apcal are that the
' (i;€.aiInant--Basavaraj who is practising as an Advocate
'4 and also an agriculturist met with an accident on
17.7.2003 at about 8.30 am on Belgaunr-Dharwad
""1
Highway near in Mammigatti Petrol Bunk while
travelling in a TATA Inciica Car Bea:'ing
M4466 along with his family members.'
Matador Van bearing No.KA
opposite d1rect1' 'on in a er
dashed against the $116 A' was
travelling, as a rfisuif 'A injuries.
Ex. P4--wounc1 injuries suffered
by the
1. ZCLW' sidsjosxbmnead, measuring 2" x as"
, -- .Contiisio1'1V.1efi:
cla1m' ant filed c1a1m' petition in
seeking' compisnsation for the injuries
s1i"fi'sret:i him against the owner and the insurer of
' 't}1z=:_ ofiisnding vehicle and also agam st the vehicle in
he was travelling' .
Notice was served on all respondents, the
respondents appeared and flied their objection
“ME
statement. Based on that, issues were
claimant lead evidence examining himself
got marked documents Exs.P1 to P16 in -«
claim and PW2- Doctor was
the injuries sutfered by Béused
opinion that the
disability to an extelfia. in
the accident and ” fncome of the
claimant V’ Advocate at the
relevajiitddqoi’ : ‘ ae part-time agiculturist
showI:::VV”b3d? eke :’1:et.ums, which is produced at
Ex.}?1_0, the income of the claimant at
annum and calculated the
ijholding that the loss of disability to the
of the same would be Rs.30,200/– per
p:1oI1th,_.e’1nd applying multiplier ’13’ awarded a sum. of
V.”V’.,.Rs..§.;44,60O/» as compensation. Besides that, the
also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/» towards
travelling expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards medical
expenses and Rs.45,000/- towards pain and sufiering,
“””\
Rs.45,0()O/~ towards loss of amenities and Rs.2,GQO/–
each for two simple injuries. In all,
granted Rs.5,58,600/- as compensation to K
along with interest at 8% p.a.
till the date of realisation
compensation was fixed on of iioiiiendirag
vehie1ei.e., x’espondent.”iSIo.i51’V’\_i§’f.1′.i€5′:i_§’»~’ifheappeilent in this
proceedings. The aggrieved
by the to the injured
3.” notice was served. The
app?-;Hent eleixnants were represented through
V
the learned counsel for the parties.
After” through the evidence and also the
dtiottments filed in support of the claimant-injured, it is
. that the claimant is a practising Advocate having
income of Rs.60,000/— per annum as per Ex.P10 filed
by him and he has also produced RTC extract—Ex.P9 in
“‘”\
respect of four items of lands bearing Sy,.Ho.58
comprised to an extent of 15 acres being
in a family partition and that the
irrigted @’ow1ng’ sugarcrane
the income which he is getting ‘the
extent of Rs.50,000/~ the ‘V
evidence on record, «_ the opiiiioii that the
income from the agile’ put together
may not be ooe the ‘I’ribunal has
erred at Rs.1,14,000/- per
sicle. The loss of future
income S ‘ lt calculated on the basis of
v 1,0t)’;09f..1/’- as income it would be 3,90,000/-
:E§e.4,44,600/» awarded by the Tribunal.
awarded by the Tribunal on
the of painend suflering, loss of amenities and
A “ll sufiered by the claimant is not challenged by
l. the appellant«Insu:ran.oe Company. Therefore, it does
not required to be interfered With. It appears that the
compensation awarded by the Txibunal on the aforesaid
*””\
count are just and proper. Therefore, this
allowed in part modifying the quantum of
as stated above. Accordingly, tI_1e… selajm’ ‘ ” V
entitked to a total compenséLt&io1f1’_’s
instead of Rs.5,58,600/« by
The rate of interest which iss.aiVa§’ar<ied by} at
8% p.a is on the V e is modified
to 6% p.a. of payment.
'I'11e in deposit may be
fer disbursement.
sd/....
Judge
Sd/e
Iudgé