Rajashekar Narayan Bekawadkar vs Suvarna Ishwar Potadar on 17 September, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 17*" mm 05' SEPTEMBER  *' 

PRESENT

THE HOWBLE MR.Jus'rIcE *§:fA1.s.:sAxBTvHé+i.i":.' 4'

AND' -
THE new BLE MR.JUSTICE §;..1§I;sATYAN.A§iAaEANi;

MISCELLANEOUS _W5miéiéE:AL?4:§d;~?.2o6/2,60%'

BETWEEN: W"

1 RAJAsHE_t{AR  RA KAN 1:3'§#;KA;-:z;r>iéP;ii""""
23. Ym:'Rs.,.'=--Qc<:':--V__23111;--.L " 
R/O KA:3.AaAc:z_3frTI _   .. '

mimwx   

DHAEEQ DIST     _

(By 3:5.   ADV}



1' ._ '-..suvARaa9. Isnma pcmma
A V MAJO_R, ~{C'¢CC: Hous1':.Hm3 WCRK
""--R/Q_'r~&'$zR I\ERi~a'£1KARC'¥kI.LI
S':'r~iA?JR,_ BELPJM
.. _ (owrsm 05* BJS MAXI CAB mam
"=uo.KA4115)

 hfi EATIML IINBURANE COMPANY
? LTD, 1:JIvIs1:cmL omczaa



RAMDEV GALLI
BELGAUM

(By Sri C.S.BENNI : H.S.LINGARAJ FOR R2 gl
R1~SERVED) H_ ~

... REsPoNDENTslf-fa'.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S i73£i)7 OF."M§*«ééT,'?f
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND. AWARD HDATED:29;6;O4 *

PASSED IN MVC NO.231/O2 ON EHE FrLE OF THE 1;:
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN;)*.& CJM{*-DHARWAD,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM ;_PETITION i%FDR
COMPENSATION END V'SEEKING*,"ENHANCEMENT" OF
COMPENSATION. =a* ; a» 13.'-

THIS APPEAL COMING om FQR HEARING THIS DAY,
sAm:AnnnaxAnA.;,,-DEL:vERmD THE EGLLOWING:

This ;' is x*x¢laimant's appeal seeking

enhancementL - of--'"acofipénsation awarded in

V Mvc.Ng;23;/2Do2_l"¢n" the file of the III

;I_AddlfioDal Ciyil Jaage {Sr.Dn) and CJM, Dharwad.

',Q. VTha$7facts leading to this appeal are

l~u that the claimant, who is an agriculturist, was

" lfiialfig his bicycle from his field to his house

l"_ "at ;Kadabagatti village on 11.12.2001, at about

"1



A*._befo.r:§   Tribunal and ,. the

3.20 pm., while he was so going a maxi cab»

bearing No.KA-24/4115 came from his 

and dashed against his bicycle, as a 

claimant f ell down and s.uffered5_" 

fractures and injures all  

Immediately, he was 
Hospital, Dharwad anci therVe4aV:ft,er.,_V he ijiaken
to Hospital of   Dharwad,
where he was an in  more
than 40 daysg:Thafiiingaajsuffered the
aforesaid   petition
againstcthei"oiknerifif,'ianriainsurerVflof maxi cab, who
are  the Tribunal and

also in this"~.proceedAi_n{:}:i'.
 The 1""'respo'r:dent/owner remained exparte

2nd

res_p'<:i_1_1de11tV}'v.insurance company was represented by

 its ""'«.Coa..;_'nsei° and filed written statement.

"'r.Thereaft'e--r, issues were framed and evidence was

"/5



recorded. The claimant examined himself as PW".----1

and examined Dr M.C.Bellad as PW.2 and 

documents Exs.P1 to 15. The 2"" respondent-Ariidiidi  V'

not adduce any oral evidence,-._ 

document Ex.D1, the insurance fiolioyf

4. Based on 'the pie-a:diI;'gs\,"~ ,.4:0:lf.:al and
doucmentary evidenceA---..._..V:on'  Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs,3._.Vd'2..34¢)?-flehg:f_'¢@npensation
to the claima'nt«f;a.ionr§&   at 6% pa.,
from the date  date of payment.
The .c}.aviInain'tn~  the quantum of
compensation this appeal seeking
enhancemenxtiiof *  

  __this appeal also the 1"

res.po'ndent.?_' though served remained

.unrepi'esented. The 2"" respondent/insurance

"*.'*c;omp;any entered appearance through its counsel

""7



and contested the appeal on merits. Heard the

Counsel for the parties.

6. On verification of the judgment land 5_l.

award and the material on record, it""isf,seenV

that the claimant has suffered ififieiafraotfifes Vfid

besides injuries to the lower fiagt of his hodt
right from the waist and dse to the injaries he
has suffered, there Ties sfi§%fi§§is§=_of 'hisl left
leg by two inches causino linoingytshocording to

the Doctor, PW;2;- who §hes*.§iven.ievidence and

issued ioettifioatei"Qfkidisahility, which is at
Ex.P5, the .olaimehtlzis.:not in a position to

stand 'for fl;ong,h Cannot walk, cannot squat,

"*c8n"?£' db Qhy lother' work which he would have

idone"inathevno:mai course prior to the accident

and that atcotding to the Doctor, the claimant

~has sfiffeied physical disability to an extent of

l3§%.tp his right lower limb and 50% to his lower

Il:§§t~~and ankle and the claimant has also

"V?



suffered functional disability in using of hie"o

leg for his dayrto-day activity.

7. Based on the evidence of the Dootor; the j '

Tribunal has held that there is L{jisabi'ii't;,}' 

30% to the whole body or Hthe iolaimantfeand§

proceeded to award co$pensatioaeunder'the head
of loss of future inoode,AlWhilé{deiug so, the
Tribunal has taken the ineémergf the deoeased at
Rs.80/+ pen §§i;7howe§9fi&"thiee€ourt is of the
opinion that._the§ lribunel "ought °to have taken
the  '1'Re.5;V1.1QA¢7/la   If Rs.100/- per
day is taken as the inoome of the claimant, the

compensation *thatf Could be awarded to the

;f¢iiamant;,under 'd*ww"head of loss of future

earnihg_Ca@aCity would be Rs.1,94,400/- instead

  of §=zs;"1',5S,~;'$jg<:j¢ awarded by the Tribunal. Since

l__ the inoofie of the claimant is taken at Rs.100/-

d'fier day, the loss of income during the period of

.treetment also requires to be alterefiqfi. which

W'?



the Tribunal awarded at Rs.2,960/-. Admittedly,

the claimant was inpatient for a period of fibre y

then 40 days and he would have taken. atleaet"id*"

another 40 to 50 days to resume to hie Qorkiandd

thereby he would have been under treatfient for ad7C

period of three monthsedgz Aocordingl§g%,the
claimant is entitled to R3é§dOO/~ towards }loss
of income during the period of treatment.

8. Though the Tribunal haS,aQarded a sum of

Rs.40,000/- jtowardst pain ,éfia_ suffering, no
amount:iWha$eW_béen 'Vawardedh' towards injury
separatelyi. '.Hefiee;. the. compensation awarded

towards pain "and, suffering is increased from

~.as.4p',"«:oQ(_§'/-__ to"""Rs...5.0,ooo;-. The Tribunal has

"v._,;1.«}:;o--»..aW3vraed°"a.__ sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss

of*narria§e prospects, which is required to be

--enhanCedfl "to Rs.35,000f- considering the

d'dieabilit§' that he has sufffred to the lower

:»lifib'7of his body, which would considerably

"*7



reduce his chance of getting married. Further,

while granting compensation under the head- cf5_

follow--up treatment, a sum of only Rs.3,0QUf+iis€;'

awarded and attendant charges are not.V----.a_§faVrdied.,

Hence the compensation awarded underf the; same _j}

has to be enhanced to Rs.5,O00/4;'tHowevér;"thisi

Court is of the opinion thatv the *é¢mpén$a£i¢n
awarded towards medical expinsési fyture medical
expenses and nouriahfientfii at dj§sf80,860/W:
Rs._20,000/-- ._g5.:j;gvv'tj";:jt)}é-- is in
Order- ACC9fé%n§$§gi i§I"V?éWid0f' the aforesaid

modification} the £otai'conpensation payable to
the <:laiman.tVwouidpibei'-.Rs_.3,99,260/-- instead of

Rs.3.3$.345f§ "awardedk by the Tribunal. The

"=aforeaaid'snm of RS,3,99,260/-- is roanded off to

 Q4», .oo,.,p'eor5";v 

%9.*in"the result, the appeal is allowed in

V"d'parts awrading compensation in a sum of

:,§s§4,ob,ooo/-- to the claimant recoverable from

W'?



respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally along

with interest at 9% from the date of 

till date of payment.   

respondent/insurance company s__ha.l_Ll_. d+ag5¢s:ii:_."'tvne.e 

compensation amount within two'-_mo;»n%:h's 'f;:o:n"'  

day.  ~. . . . . .
     "Tud§5

     .....