IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE.JA.,S_.BO?ANNRL A
MFA No.261.7/2OOS"~T_
MFA CROB No.73
"/2oo9.C*Cf
IN MFA NO2617/2008
BETWEEN
THE DEVESIONAL«.._M*ANAG1£-R,'-~_V
DIVISIONAL O.F'f¥'I.C;E, " .f ..
NORTH VIESTTTKTAARNATAKA.ROAEv--T'RANSPORT
CORPORATION;AEVE,LOALIM.p1v:S1ON,
BELOAUM, ' ' A "
OWNER AND INSURER OENWKRTC BUS
NO.KA--2_3/F~253',V A A ' "
THRO#L;jG1L1A,THE 'CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
**** ~ . . . APPELLANT
V.'(BY.:.VS'r'21.1K,_'I\IAC§}xRAJA, ADVOCATE.)
'SVR1.1RANNA RCUDRAPPA BAGEWADI
" " ':4fA(3-ED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
A OCC; POWER LOOM BUSINESS,
RESTEINC AT H.NO.81, MARGAMBA GALLI,
_.__""i{H£:SE3AG~BELGAUM.
RESPONDENT
"(BY SRLSANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE.)
$
I'
Q'
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
22/O2/2007 PASSED IN MVC NO2506/2004 ON.'
FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR,HDN'.')---Oj'&:v..
ADDITIONAL NIACT, BELGAUM, AWAR}_Zé_ING..'_'V*-----._
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,84,324/-- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TI'L;L"PI'\.SI'~M'E.NT_.
IN MFA CROB N0.'733/2009 _
BETWEEN
IRANNA RUDRAPPA EAGEwA_D'I " I
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS'-,-- AI
OCC: POWER LOOM BUSINESS,' I _
R/O. H.NO.81, MAR__GA1\,=i"BA- GALL_I,__ I
KHASBAG--BELsGA§IIM. "
.. I ' . ...PETI'I'IONER.
(BY SEI.SIoINIJAy"' IS:O;1'1}§A"f-A.GER1; --ADVIOCATE.)
AND
THE D;1'v'ISIONAI, MANAGER,
" '~D_IVIS_I'€)NALA .
NORTH WEST.KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
'COAI:2I»'ORAI'ION,' IBELGAUM DIVISION,
'(BY SRl';fI.'R.BENTUR, ADVOCATE.)
]3EL'G_A.U"MZ"_..V_
RESPONDENT
MFA CROB IS FILED U/O 41 RULE 22 OF
I R/W SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988 AGAINST THE
KJUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22/O2/2007 PASSED
IN 1\/IVC NO.2SOe/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 ADDITIONAL
I
'1'
4_ . Vawardeicd.
MACT, BELGAUM, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,84,324/-- AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION. '
THESE MFA AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE
COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant corporation .in”
question the judgment and awatd I
passed in NEVC N02506 / 200/¥_in_V so lfarllas tlie’
of compensation awarded by th4e”‘-Tribunal’. cross
objections fi–ledVlbj?.’the ol’aiiumant§, the claimant is seeking
further enhianclementl ‘amount as against the sum
as the question of quantum arises, both in
the the cross objections the contentions
” ‘ti.-Ti.”V”«.urged in appeal are to be considered at the outset.
The learned counsel for appeliant contended
the Tribune} was not justified in awarding the
medical expenses as done by it in the absence of
J
4’:
claimant was in–patient for a period of 39 days. in
respect of the expenses incurred towards the said
treatment the medical bills have been produced
same are marked as Ex.P.10. Consolidated
bills indicates of the total expenses.i»neurre.d
of Rs.~’~ll,692=44. Therefore when.’
undergone treatment as an for a
month and the bills been
produced, the arnouflt the actual
bills cannot be
6) as reckoned by
the Tribu”nal,:_ injuries and the disability
thereafter isllirxdicated Afrorniwhat has been noticed above.
‘The who hadv-been examined as PW.2 before the
“haslvistated the physical disability alnounting to
— mlilaeeeee–;lef the left lower limb and 15% to the left
doubt the disability with regard to the whole
been indicated. However taking into
.consideration the injuries suffered and the avocation of
the claimant, the disability assessed by the Tribunal at
J
“0
17% cannot be considered as excessive. Therefore even
on that ground the same does not call for interference
and the compensation in any event does not call for
reduction.
7′) In this background the enhancemeagt..soi;ig:}1;t:V”
by filing the cross objection requires to be c_onysidered,i’4_lnii
so far as the other heads as already no_ticed’,__
appropriate. The only question iivvhich
consideration is with regard to theiiiloss oi;-future income
in relation to the dis.aL§ilit;v. ” _ regard While
calc’ula¥;ingi–th ‘ ath–e..Tri’ounal has reckoned
the dailyiincome:o1;:”thie»Vinjur*ed’at Rs.80/– per day. The
claimant contended -that». heiwas a loorn operator and the
‘ac_cid=3:n’t occu’r1*e.d««on 11-10-2004 and as such the
iisaiirn day reckoned is on the lower side.
made by the claimant that he was
i”~..«.._ea,rnirzg”Rs.6,000/– cannot be accepted, however a
of 123.100/– per day is to be reckoned and if
H ‘iii”‘-i.the__5monthly income is taken at Rs.3,000/– and if the
parameter with regard to the disability and
J
‘E
multiplier as reckoned by the Tribunal is taken into
consideration, the compensation towards 17% disability
would be in a sum of Rs.1,04,040/– since the Tribunal
has already awarded a sum of Rs.83,232/–, the clai:n.ai1t
would be entitled to the difference. The enhanced”‘po.rm’.,or1:_.V H
of the amount is payable with interest at the’ it
as awarded by the Tribunal. The e:n4ha;r1eeid
interest shall be deposited the Corporation a
period of six Weeks from the date_reoeipt’ of.the_E:opy of
this order.
8) ‘–.abl0’ve,….the appeal and the
cross ob}eot_ions of. No order as to costs.
9) ~ T he listatutory.ll’arnount deposited in this Court
pfaii sin’ittetd._to thellllribunal.
IUDGE