High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri Shivabasu S/O Nagappa … vs Shri Rajeev Madhavrao Murnal … on 26 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shri Shivabasu S/O Nagappa … vs Shri Rajeev Madhavrao Murnal … on 26 February, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAI§A__"*   
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD'.   

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY 9;? FEBRUAl§Y» 2'oV'1c-_  "
BEFORE: d 1' .
THE I-ION'BLE MR. .11:-s_'r1c1¥:AA'.s. Boii}z;§:.§\t4§  .

M.F.A NO. 99'}0,I§o96 ¢i\r1'*.rj_':e '  

BETWEEN:
Shri. Shivabastg"  V  _   
S/o. Nagappa"Géniger::--. 2:   _ 
Aged about~46\yéar_;% " ' --.   .
Occ: Agrict:ltu1'e_, " é  .
R/ 0. Sa_ngafiatfi 'v;i;1_1age._ "  a
Tq: M?.'1dho1',* fiiet. Fiij'apu:.¢'

  .   ' ...APPELLANT
(By Sri.' Sanjay  K_{"1t.ageri';~ « Adv.)

 V'  -   A   ..... .. V

  1 ed  Shr"i--..  "Madhavrao Murnal

-'_Si.nCe"deadd'_'bj} his L.Rs.

"la. S'hr€..«:"Madhavra0 Asangirao Mumal
.. Aged: Major, Occ: Service
'A  "1.b. Smt. Prabhavati
W/0. Madhavrao Murnal
Aged: Major, Occ: Household

Both are 12/0. C.M.C Venkatpeth
Bagalkot, Tq. 82; Dist. Bagalkot 587 101

é

'Au



2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
By its Divisional Manager
Branch at Kaladgi Road
Bagalkot -- 587 101

(By Sri. N. Shankar Rangareji, Advil for_HRij{A}TT & _Re1_(lB~}..   j
Sri. S. V. Yaji, Adv. forR2)       "

  .IIeeeeeNeeNeei  

MFA IS FILED U /S 173l(le}.:?0F' MVAOT-A,e i=98"9 AOAINST

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARDlDT.'=._12.5.2'0Q€§ RASSED IN
MVC NC).1459/ 1999 oN..THE.*,FILE_'oF'-THE PRL.' C.J (SD) 82;
JMFC 85 MEMBER, MACT'-.NO'.v1;'-.LJAMKHANDI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM -I.PETI'I*ION..._Fo;te 'COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING }3NHAN.CEME3N'F  COMPENSATION.

THIS41A;pPZ5:sAlL .(lf'0l\iI.I_ll\.lG_lF':C)'ll2l ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE scoNR1'"I3.E,*LI'vLE,R'E.O:'THE PO LLOWING:

 """   
The'élclairnanteapj§el1a'n_§ 'is before this Court seeking

enhancerr1e.nt of cornpen.s~ation as against the Sum awarded

  No.1l4'59,/__1999. The Tribunal has awarded the

A ;oOr'npc.r:_1sationvo_f 125.92 ,20o/ --.

2,.  learned Counsel for the appellant while seeking

 enhancement would point out that the Tribunal has

 e.rro'r_:eouSly deducted 1/ 3"" of the income reckoned though

it the claim in the instant case was for the 'loss of future

earning' as per the disability stated by the doctor. It is



further contended that even under the heads under which it

has been granted, the amount is on the lower side andéiiwith

regard to the 'loss of amenities', no amount wh_a'tsoeve_r h;._as~.

been granted. With regard to the medical ex,pe.n_sesals0,  is ._ 

contended that what is granted is on thelgllower    if

3. The learned Couns'e1rf'e.r the"respondent"hovsfever,*VV

seeks to justify the award passied ‘by the “‘I’ri_bun§al. It is
contended that the Tribunal entjtae -evidence available

on record has come ,to”*its’ conclusion ” and the Tribunal

having””de’cided “3’u’st_”coIn;$ensation, the same does not
call for’*en’l1ance1ne’nt. V» ”

_ _4. In’the 1igl1tAo–fiw’liiat has been contended, firstly, it is

tovlb’e istated that”–in”the facts and circumstances of the

V preseent.’:ctaseu,fl’ the Tribunal was not justified in deductin.g

‘ls,/331 ofltlie amount for self–expenses. in the instant case,

what to be considered was the loss of future earning, in

Aiviewgofiithe disability and as such having estimated the loss

‘due to disability suffered, the entire amount ought to have

“been awarded since the injured himself is the claimant. On

it

that aspect of the matter, the compensation _aw_a-rded

requires to be corrected. Hence if the compensatioin”=o;n–.. _

said head is calculated taking into co.ns’i’der_ation *_thel

parameters adopted except the (‘iedu’cet.ioni,’tt..the”

would be entitled to the eutn’et_VRs.1″,’ao”;sQo,=;.;”iteeriithe j2o’%

disability. Since the Tribunal h§e.i,gwg’rded’-ae_.’é7,éoo/–, the
claimant would be of l§si.l33,600/~.

With regard to .the Apsufilerin:§;pV—-‘considering the
nature of the suffered, the fracture
and since hlasvltstlaited higher percentage
with riegarci anidllthe Tribunal has taken the
same at ‘towards pain and suffering is

inadequateiii’ .i’Xceoi”dii’;gl§}; a further sum of Rs.15,000/~ is

awa.rde”d. Since “noiamount is awarded towards ‘loss of

of Rs.10,000/– is awarded. Towards ‘loss

dtiringetreattnent period’ and also towards expenses towards

treatment, a sum of Rs. 10,000 / — is awarded.

5. Therefore, in all the claimant is entitled to the

“enhanced compensation of Rs.68,600/- with interest at the

same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced

Jl

compensation with interest shall be deposipeei’.V}o3§’*5fhe

Insurance Company within a period of six wee1~:sjfr.oh1Ath.e V’

date of receipt of copy of this jud’g”zAfie1:t.&_ 0;: the
entire amount shall be disbursed to . ~. ”

In’ terms of above, the stand’s’diVsTposeoi§ of .

No order as to cos'ts ._F      ~ / /IN

gab