IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE I9" DAY OF JANUARY, 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE v. JACANNATHAN .
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2 1204/2QO8'(Mfy')._: ;_. '
BETWEEN: ._
BHARATI NINGAPPA GODEKAR,
AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R / AT KUMBARHALLA VILLAGE, . .4
JAMKHANDI TALUKA, BAGALKOTE DIST.
(BY SR1. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, AD'-.1,' ; .
AND:
1. SMT. BALAWWAANAGAPPA .Hj_DAKA.LLA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A'1'g.K'ULPIALj.,I - ~
VILLAGE,TO;JAr;iKH.AND1,i .
DIST. ~
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNI'I'E£3._IND_IA INSURANCE__CO. LTD,
BRANCH' O_FFI.CE, KA'FAGLBUILDING,
KACHERI ROAD,VJ.A--MKHAND1,
BEST. BAOALKOTE.
' ««««« ...RESPONDENTS
'(BY LAXMANVB. MANNODDAR, ADV. FOR R2.)
-- A' '----.,'T1i1Su."A.P15.EAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
' .,..APP.ELi;.ANT
AGf\_INST THE' {JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.5.2008 PASSED IN
MVC"'NO:--592,'"2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, NO.V,
_ "._JAIVIKHAND:_I, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
"COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
«. _ OTTHIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
. COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties finally in..re_sp.ect
of the appeal preferred by the claimant for _
compensation.
2. Appellant counsel Mrutyunj a1y..i’l’a ta i:Ba1*’1gf;Ai
submitted that the Tribunal erredVaini’tal<ing"i'the__1os§s of
earning capacity at 60% when thei.i;Dootorah'as_itopined that on
account of paraplegia-ilthe fappellantiihas been rendered
totally useless and the 'bevenifassessed at 100%.
But, however,i_tl1€;i1Tribuhal nvotihave reduced it to 60%
despite.iv**i'na.,l;xing o'bseryationw–vt§hat the appellant was
broughtin 'la the Court. Learned counsel
also sougliity for enhanbernent of compensation under the
heaaioi medical" expenses by pointing out that the appellant
_VspeVntRs«.9S,676/» yvhereas medical expenses is given at
3.__~” the other hand learned counsel for the
i”‘insuranr:..é company argued that compensation awarded is
ijust reasonable and 60% whole body disability taken by
}~
Ԥ
the Tribunal does notwcall for any increase and so also no
increase is called for under the head ‘of medical expenVses’.i._V_
4. Taking note of the above submission”and,itl’iei~
liability not being in dispute, E am’ of thethe
disability percentage could have been.:’
because not only the Dos:-.tor._V has-..given fithej=.disa.’bility,i*
‘percentage at 100% but even th4e””-Tribunal.haisiobseirved that
the claimant was bro{i5.gh’t_’iIi a;V–1.v,i}h–e_elie:dchair and she is
suffering from unable to get
up and she able body. Such being
the state to haslbeen reduced, it is not
possible person would be able to do
Work in 100% ought to have been
taken as disability from the earning point of View and
V1’conisequentljf«under the head of loss of dependency, the
A1″apf3eVlla1it’_..,,i2iril.l:’vibe entitled to Rs.6,12,000/– as against
Rs.i3,45-_,’6’0-O’i/–. Thus increase under the said head will be
Rs,2,66;4.00/-. Other heads of compensation requires no
“”}T_1V’iOd~il:’iCatiOI1. Out of the enhanced amount, 70% shall be
.»v.l{ept in fixed deposit in the name of the claimant and the
%
baiance wifl be given to the claimant for her medical
treatment.
Appeal is allowed by modifying the amottht.
thus.
4
kmv