IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2oo:3f:_k
PRESENT é % "
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE cHIDA}{ANDAeeiIL:§AL»
A1'€D.__ % * M ;
THE H()N'BLE MR.J[IE3C1'IQE A 3*
M.F.A..No.,_17fi9.[_?i)03
"Between:
National Insurance Ce;
Having its mrfistered. ef.'_fi.::e at
No.3, Midglletola. Stijeet, V _
Ca1cutta'.a11ciit" Banga1o1'e j. V
Regio11.-ad 0_£fice''a:; »
Shubham;n~ Ciomplex, ~
144' "1i.)I" r'. T,-I.m,rI"1j *
J. Til, .1v.t '.1-.JV.V'.\:.I'fl.\.l.'4'V " '
BaI1.83l01'e-5533 _» O01 *
duly' --1*eprese;n't:e§:'i _'by.. 4 ..--~
Regior1a_1_ Mvaxiager. = _ .. Appellant
" __eAVn:l_ ;"~.._ " "
'-Sfi ?I~ier1i'§;i-=I:1'111a }v'ia1"u'u;i Patil,
Higldu, Male, Adult,
n T R/ efiangatihal, Hukkeri
' Taluk, Belgaum District. ...Respo11de-nt
(By Sri Saehin S Pviafium, Adv. fer}
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying set aside the judgment and award
passed by the Add}. Meter Accident. C-13.11113 '_l'1*ib1_1_n.:--1l, I-Iukkeri
L
at Hukkeri passed in MVC No.305/2001 passed on
17.12.2002
.
This MFA coming on for final ihis day,
A s PACHHAPURE J, deiivered the fo11owir3i§: fi
. JUDGMEN i
The appellant. – h1sL1ra}1ce_”‘ fine
. 1;» 1″x……… “.–…. 5
‘ ; !lUULlI’fC£%..{)11 1.1.2301.
I0
~–3
2:’
(‘D
i
*2
<
1:9
r-:
:1
I-3
3’1′
13
0’0
-0-
D
E-
1
131:?’ .
.0 .
E. I
«-9-
CT:
Ii
ES
«-0»
Ho
D
E:
E1
».-r-
5′”
The a1Jpefi-anif; :.4i’.”.:e.”‘.f’ ‘ ”
011 the head of future loss
of or the Clailllélllt, as pointed by the
eoilnse-lmibr! reveals that he was working as
t
‘V ‘V 9 V 9 9
Atcceeuaiemt 2,1 t…e C…-o},..1..i1.e See:
‘~<
I
E:
:3.
E
E1:
Sb
3
5.
an
» 1*–Ii1o11Atfi11y,::suiI1 of ‘Rs.i2,3’2U/’– as salary as per the C:’1′(i11”t
. ‘– ti:-‘»S11v.t3(i..a.t. Further he was also LIC agent and in that
i;egaifd,.’_Eix.P27 and Ex.D3 have been produced, which reveal
ii ‘i the claimant had earned comlnission to an extent of
of doctor — PW.2 reveals that the claimani: had suffered
permanent disability at 45% in the left. lower limb. Though
f
2,
°’\
‘
.- ij1;.v
J
the doctor did not state anything with regard to ciisa
z__. 4.1.” –.L_1,_ L-..1-. J.’l.\_e !1’\.._:’!._….-..__1 L_.__’ ¢__1___,. g._¢-~. -V;.__- 3
.l 1 LHC7 WUUIU l}U(.l_y, U15 iuuurreu flab lzifitill J.ll|.U i_«._(_) 1b;’._U.
the permanent disability at 20% of the” and
calculating e01I1pe1’1satioI1 inclusive heft,’ ii
Rs.1,21,758/– as eornmissien
nd awarded e rrmensa’ fl”‘=fVPsi-.Q8.62Q[VV¥–.t
_….- _ V…—~. — — — –r – U-.. _._v
“‘Wr-swds less urf
wvuuu
filture iI1C()I11C.
(lei ee l_tir;a.. he continued 1…
service -ueperative Society even after
the to show that he was
on the ground of disability. In
that view:’ef inelusioll of salary of the Claimant
»A the perusal of E:-LD3 does not reveal any
r that his income from the LIC agency was
r§d:,1ce§1iaitcr the accident. Ex.D3 — a letter of the LIC reveals
tliat. business performance of the elairnant from ‘1/1.2002
r\ 1 1 (‘If’\f\f”) -= :5 g-u-“-n.-u- I-1r-kc; rt , ,’1-1 1-1+ 1-ma 1’3.-_I’-It-1 I”rI1t-I;-I-“I. Di:
Us .1. -I.-xfi\J\J.£’ LC. QILCI L u L31′. 1 IJLI P311 ILJ3
int-93
H worth 125.23 Iakhs and earned commission of Rs.1,0S,095/–
for the period from 1.4.2002 to 30.11.2002. The fact of
/3¢\
securing the insurance policies, commission earned by the
el i smt is 110
:-1*
Th . counsel fo1f…tiie~appe11ant
:1 A
disputes ma (‘re t we fr”etuI” -“id by
the appellant, there is no 1’ec_h.1Cii9I1 bf’.
claimalit. and therefore the
compensation on this heatl_V.:vp”~~ ceiiiisel of
mf;_u_m. disability
(‘D
I-h – ‘
’21;
and in case the V’ “”1, he ecr’1-:1 irve
Ea
earned still ‘ .1i1e_re gjbyi inete policies and getting
coIn1nissit)rj.«4..V i’:fi–‘fviex,1i_V~::)_:i’f ‘Vthe”Ii§fa1_r3ontentions, it is necessary
for l1S””E{\. {would} be the disability affecting the
._ 3*? be taken as permanent disability of the totai
would be 15% only. It is the contention of the
i * sepurisel for the appellant. that if the elaiinaiit has suffered
‘disability, it does not aifect the earning capacity of the
ppefiaiit as insmanee peiimes maul-:1 be secured even *..=…h
the disability suifered by the ciaimant. As the evicience
discloses that the claiinant has earned more iiicome than
‘”‘1″t. he was actually esanin” be.o1’e the 2-.ccic3,e_,,t~.i_,s.=.;?1f.i that it
would not affect his loss of future into
corisideration the feasibility of see:
in the p1’ese11t days, we are the
J – . __11d proper to corlsitiee iaifecting
the Inatter, if we f as commission and
adopting I11_u..itip1ie1* to Rs.20,69,886/ -. Out.
Thei’efofe~, vVflZ!(:f is entitled to the compensation
R V’ _ e1i§ur;aeratecl below: ‘
;~I :31 U1 _.¢’.»_.-9.’.-V £_~.D”4-s_-44_
. V”‘«LossA.oi”.f11t.ure income ~ Rs.2,()6,988/ —
sufi’eri11gs — Rs. 15,000]-
expenses – Rs. 49,000] –
.Loss of income during treatment ~ Rs. 4,640/ –
. ” of amerlities – Rs. 10,0GO,”~
Diet, conveyance, attendant
A Charges – Rs. 5,000] —
Future medical expeiises — Rs. 5,000] –
____….–_u.-…u…_-.-..——_____
In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed in part in
the above terms g1’a11ti11g compensation of Rs. — with
O/L ‘r\ T’ ‘E”I’l”\I’Y’h 4′
{U .¢5I.. .uuu.1 L_u
F1
5’1’
(‘D
an
[“9”
9?»
C55
as
The appellant. is diree'{‘.ec1″‘ ‘ to V.pa_y. ‘1’l1e “a111dL111i._ <31'
…….,…..-.-……+:….. 1…_…,..1…..1 …:+L:…. .§:,v1_:¢ –.n..1-.. 4'…..,.. +§.;;:-
L. 1 JCILD u 1 c1WdJLlCu \N.l|…lJ. 1 i:1t_.uL Ccna ul 1 L11;l.':» U _y.
.. 1-u_. -I I
bd/"'
T__..1r-cc:
J U» 9
. . ‘ . .. I
. “””‘I
mam. Judge