IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD E
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY';'2VQ;'ib5'..:\
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICT: N/.'::JAGAN'?§}§T££§NVVA_
M.F.A.No.'7142/2CQ£3*.(_1\/IV)'.:v_~_.A H =
BETWEEN :
GADIGEPPAGOUDA _
S /0 SATANAGOUDA PATIIL;@ L:ARIMA--:uf:, %
AGE:28 YEARS, "
OCC:BUSINESS, V T
R/0 BAIC}-IAWAL.LI,._ '
HANGALTALUK, 1'
HAVERI ' APPELLANT
(By Sri.Raj'en'C§r;g.§ §'L3A11k'H1}{0'ti; Ad'v.')'§
AND I 1 V E _
1. SRI RAJAPPA. ,S'H1v2§Pi;TRARRA BIDARGADDI
" ;§TGE;MAJOR_A,_ V
- ,_oC,C;BUSINESS;'*"'
v. 3 OWNER OF MAXI CAB
S 1'-;'O'.'-KA .2'7.,_/4344,
._ '*'___R/G A_D__UR'DISTRICT,
A _ HAv_2;RI;__
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE C0,, LTD,
., BRANCH OPP: TO BUS
" V "STAND I-IAVERI, VALID FROM
V 22. 1 1.2000 TO 21.11.2001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BRANCH MANAGER. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, Adv. for R2)
This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of Isl’:/.» Act
against the judgment and award dated 16.05.2005 pas-sed, in
MVC No.29/2002 on the file of the learned Civil Judge,(iS«r_’.fiDn..)
and JMFC, Hangal, partly allowing the claim_.§i_petit_1’on__” 1″-arm
compensation and seeking enhancement of compe~nsait’ion1 0
This appeal coming on for hea’r’ing,« ithis ‘.thieVc’ouirt
delivered the following: 2 Y X ..
JUDGMENT:.
Heard the learned counsel_’i:i’for the appelilantiiand also
learned counsel for the 20″-“ill._rf;gpo_ndVen.t¥’I.nsurance Company.
2. This appeal–i;s’—by the _cliaiInanit’_*seek’i:ng enhancement of
compensafion. thfe”–groun.d th’at'”ithe MACT erred in not
awardingi”‘-adequate under the head of medical
expenses to:ya1:d§;;1oss of amenities of life although the
.-‘v.appel_’i”eir1t: had suiferesc1___45% limb disability as per the medical
iii-.§3V’i(i:iC’1″l.C€ »andi’ha’vi.r1g suffered 8 injuries out of which injuries 3
to are nature. The MACT ought to have awarded
jcompensatiyonii adequately under the above heads and further
:subi’riission made is that though Insurance Policy was
and also was in force MACT had put the liability on
owner of the vehicle but not on the Insurance Company
and hence the said error also requires to be rectified and
liability be put on the Insurance Company.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent~Insurance_
argued that while the policy is admitted and
force as on the date of the accident, themliability be the
Insurance Company. However, as V’f.ar’;as the.
compensation is concerned, subfni,ssion’..made~_. is; that the’
Tribunal did not accept: the medieal llbills prod-uced by the
appellant because the bills didl’co–ny.ii1ce–.the Tribunal as
having not weighed’in_ tofgthe bills the names
of different personsiiways’fou.n;d.._an–d thesaid names was struck
off and the ‘apl1’ellaTl1’ti,lSli r1ame”—was written and as such MACT
was justified, “in l Rs.10,000/– towards medical
expenses. ‘As far aspdisability is concerned, submission is that
‘dopctor viexairnined before the Tribunal did not speak about
any .sabil __ ‘ ‘
-,4. Tal<:ing"'into account the above submission, as far as
liiiabiliity isflconcerned in View of the policy being said to be in
I_t;£oi+.~.pVe"aé on the date of the accident, the liability will fall on the
)5
Insurance Company and to the said extend the order of the
Tribunal requires to be modified. As far as the quantum of
compensation is concerned, having examined the on.'
record by the Tribunal, I am of the View that theVicomp::_e'nsatior:_p
does not require any enhancement uncle": the: heads ._loss of
income, pain and suffering and mediCal"–eXpensesf " Howetverl,'-..g
towards loss of amenities of life, in View of the inreclical eyidence
indicating shortening of 'the right' cm and
wasting of calf mussals by _thigh.rr1'ussals by 4 cms
and the appellantdiavirilé out of which
injuries 3 to pn'ature.V.taking all these factors
into account iAan}'rl_.r fracture of the upper 1/ 3rd of
right fibula pp and shaft of right tibia and the
disability percentage hvmentiioned by the doctor, towards loss of
' 'amerii–tiles3..I?s.''15,000 V-"iimiore is awarded.
if therefore allowed by enhancing the
compensation' Rs.l5,000/– which shall carry interest at 6%
Tlie.li'ability is on the Insurance Company to satisfy the
if amount as also the enhanced amount and the liability
E?
I
put on the owner is set aside. The award is accordingly
modified by allowing the appeai in part.
Jrn/–