, A1. Sari-iRa.i:i
IN THE I'§IGI'I COIERT OF KAR!¢EATA.K.A AT BANGALORE
DATED 'i'HIS THE 13% DAY or FEBRUARY 2099
PRESERT
TI-IE Ho1~I*BLE MRJUSTICE v.GoPALA if
THE Ho1~v3LE nm.JUs*rmE ' _ _ 5
msc.r-*ms'r APP§:___I§g§50§"3'1 J
BETWEEH: A % AT % I VJ
Sri Krishnappa
S/o.Na11dappa
R/Qlslamapur V 1 1
Chikkaba1}apL;2"'Fg)\%2'n. 2; -f"v..._._§..Appe1Iant -
{I3ykkS1~1'jk$.1?i:sasé:m§e;th sabarad, Adv.)
" * «S'fo.Kémpa1ma
' ,Gpp;«B"us Stand
' _ 2. The manager
National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
" ..1Z)L.O.V~.= No.72
" VUzfi1y Building Armexe
Mission Road
;Bangalore 560 027. ..Respondents
(By Sri H.S.Liz1garaj, Adv. for R2)
This Misc.First Appeal is flied under Sec. 173(1) of
MV Act against the Judgment and Award dated
3/\) , C.Ar;”\-1»–{»’%L’\C’-“I: x_,
2
12.4.2005 passed in MVC No.4858/2004 (311 the file 0fX
Add1.SCJ, Member MACE’, Metromlitan Area Bangalore
(SCCH) partly allowing the claim petition,-‘–.,for
compensation and seeking enhancemergzw T *- ‘ of
compensation. V v
This MFA coming on for ”
Anand, J1, delivereci the fo1lowi11g:h-gum
Junow-JR’: s 5 ‘
This is a eiaimanfis for of = L’
compensation. We have hea1fd..VVfi*1e’1ea1z1.eti-coirrisel for
parties and we have beet: records.
2. The fizadi i.1:1j1.1ry of right
lower limb of right lower
limb j’o.i1’1t. The claimant had also
suffered fi*act21re” of the right side. The
medics} 0fl’1cerx’has_ assessed the permanent disability
C0-km-GEL
Vrviséa-_vis V 1o.s::~._o;f ea.rn§.z1gAa.t 66%.
A ilearxled counsel for both the parties would
coiaeede that the assessment made by the medical
. o§’ficer5is proper.
§
4. The claimant was aged 32 years at the time of
accident. He was working as an electrician. The
Q/\} _ 1_…,fP«. mG{/\, I
Tribunal has assessed the earnings of the claimant at
RS1]?/(300/~ p.a., which, in our Considered
inadequate. Having regard to the age and _
the claimant, we assess the 6 $ “=
Rs.3,0{}O/- pm. or Rs.36,000/is
earning capacity would be RV:~’s}2«..’..1_V..,6()V(“),’.. .
having regard to the age of adopted
’16’ multiplier which,’ i;1;flo1.1i«;VfL. not cail for
interference. Ttitts, earnings
would be 12 x 15 ).
for compensation of
as.3,45′,(.oz)/–V “loss of future earning’.
‘1I’he awarded compensation of
Rst.V5;ODO;!”– tewards medical expenses, conveyance,
attendant charges. Having regard to
t _ the izatttre -rftinjmy and expenditure incurred by the
ei£a.im_’a1:.at’,V.the same is enhanced to Rs.25,()OO/—-. The
has not properiy assessed the inconvenience
“fie
Vt “w’fii(:h claimant has to sufier dmmgnrtest of his life. The
V
t sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the
head ‘ioss of amenities’ is inadequate. Having regard to
the age of the claimant and pain and inconveriience
which the ciaimant has to suffer during rest of
WC award a sum of Rs.50,00()/~ under the ~
amenities.
6. Therefore, we accept theiiaijpeal ‘V
impugned Award is modifie’£i;:._”The of
Rs.2,27,750/~ awardedjev eiihéinced to
Rs.-$20,600/-. The enhaneed shall earn;
interest at tne;e% ‘_Vofv;6% “d-aie of petition an
the date of deposit shall be
t1*ansm:7{£te(i fortliivith.
‘!\ /
i _Sk/i3;)y},7_?L2Qii’§}’~A