{By4'S1:é.R.Jaiprakash, Advocate for R2;
in: THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA AT HANGALOHE
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER,
: PRESENT : >' % Z %
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JIIS'1'_I(3Is'<..1.\'.I{é<.I""!,ifi".:i,«Ié\ '-
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE » '
M.F.A.NQ.11855 2006 {1v;v) _
B BEN: .
Janardhana,
S/0. Devappa, _ _
Aged ab_(Su'é':;:fsTé-'7 }'§a,rsi§a ' . 'V
Thuc1:ya'i:;1;a«._t£':~use;,._A_ " .. .
Ajjavara Villagé', s;i11'j'1;a f1"-a1a1§;.§
.... _ ...Appe11ant
(By Sari. Krish1Ha,.Aci_V0cate]
AND: V
1. _V.Sudha1s;a.r,'--_S/ 0. Iwélu,
4;: Pal1ikaji"HQi1se, '
V' I',far11_ad Postvéizlfillage, "
Sullia Taluk,
" V _ D.a'kshina-- Kannada District.
" Natibna}= Insurance Co.
F'i.1"st E}Oor, Krishna Buiiding,
Main Road, Sullia Taluk,
"D-akshina Kannada District.
Respondents
44 Served and unrepresented)
$***>i= J’;
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award Dated: 26.05.2006 passed C
No.749/2002 on the file of the Member MACT,.«’P1.ittur,
DK, partly allowing the claim petition for comp-enpsatiiin
and seeking enhancement of compensation. =
This MFA coming on fo:”””‘I-Ieari4_:r.igi_,V’4″
K.N.Keshavanarayana, J ., deliveredftiie fo}1o’vvii;gE
t_1__t_J____1;;i’cT_;\/1 EN *1″ V
This appeal by the the
judgment and awards passed in
M.V.C.No.74~9/2:002 on Accident
Claims District.
fiifilied claim petition under
Section ._th:e” e.’:_i”\.;’Iotor Vehicles Act, seeking
compensation fOr..__the persona} injuries sustained by
i’1.irr1-.inv.__ti1e’vi.rI10t0r vehicle accident that occurred at
aboititi on 29-12-2001. The claim petition
euwas resisted by the respondent Insurance Company,
A the owner of the offending vehicle remained
aiiesent and placed ex~parte. On appreciation of orai and
.$.”.’a
documentary evidence, the Tribunal. after answering
the issue regarding actionable negligence in”-,the
affirmative, quantified the total compensation at
Rs.l,97,540/– under different heads
payment of the said amount with
annum from the date of petition tillthe date dep’os’it.V”g
The Insurer of the offendin§”«V._\xfe.t1_icle”‘w’as’V’:directed to
satisfy the award.
4. Being diss’atistied’ quantum of
compensation the fTri’our1a1, the appellant
claimant hliaslvj’.presehte:d~«–..this_– appeal, inter alia, on the
ground that_ has committed error in not
awarding any’ compensation for the loss of future
“account of permanent disability suffered by
a’~resul’t of the accidental injuries.
“Upon service of notice of this appeal, the
secondvvllrespondent Insurance company has appeared
tthlrough its learned counsel. We have heard both sides.
V Hi3erused the records.
6. The manner in which the accident occurred
and the resultant injuries sustained by the a.p’pe_’llant
claimant are not in serious dispute. The ”
counsel for the appellant vehevm’e’n-tly
though the claimant in evidence ”
categorically stated that ohalccount of accidental it
injuries he has left the thoughthe said
assertion on his has
not been challenged ,Ve3flarnination by the
Insurance has committed error
in towards loss of future
earningl”oVn’– account._lof~l.::5cr1nanent disability. It is his
further subumissioyh that: if not 100%, at least 60% of
llossi’-of future earning ought to have been awarded on
1 -the;~basi:’s~.of th.e.1medical evidence available on record.
A 7. V. other hand, the learned counsel for the
ll.”~’~___l’-».lnsurer,V__Alsought to justify the judgment and award
it rconte–nding that in the absence of any evidence adduced
the claimant to show that he has left the job after the
.fg}/
accident, the Tribunal is justified in not awarding any
compensation towards loss of future earning. Thjerefore,
the judgment and award does not cail for ‘
by this Court.
8. The evidence on record establishes
in the accident. the appel1’a{1ti.ysustainedj”-rsoinffiessed V
fracture of L2 Vertebrilfiiith lalsollfracture
dislocation of surgical He was
impatient in 2001 to
Sta Februaiy examined as PW3, who
has suffered by the
appellatita has whole body disability at
60% -The llPi1ysicai1y’-handicapped Certificate produced
. auswlper EX.Pi3 issued by the District
Officer, Dakshina Kannada District,
Mafigalore-.,,ll«:would also indicate that the appellant has
]siiff_eretii*’t5O°/(3 physical disability. In fact, the Insurance
-_d’Clo’rnoany has produced the Salary Certificate of the
“‘at)pe1lant issued by the Sullia Taluk Parishista
£3
Vargagala Doddapramanada Vividhoddesha (LAMPS)
Sahakari Sangha [NJ Sullia, as per Ex.Rl. According to
this certificate the appellant was employedv….§isVV’:€iaiesV.
Clerk in the said Society on a
Rs.3,108/- and he was liable togfiayi:Api<o'ressio;ia1u
Rs.25/– per month. The appellant—-e$§amined. .hi'rriself
PW}. In his Examinationwin~iVCh.ief,_ helhasasseixited that
on account of the accidental has lost Control
over the bladder and. he has no
sensation in his ;?btoth.v l'0wtef: lii';4ib_s"'an'd"'on account of the
impla1tihtsmini* he cannot lift his right
hand he asserted that after the
accident, oii._:accsunt the disability, he has left the
l 3fl'1e"l'Societ'}Vf""and after the accident, he is taking
A'–co£I}plete~..;'est~.in his house as he is unable to move and
woifix. 'l,a'l1'c,f2'elri1sal of the cross examination of PW} on
J'beVl1_al.t the Insurance Company indicates that there is
even a suggestion to PW1 that he has not left the
"job and that he continued to work in the Society as
fl
Sales Clerk. in the absence of any such challenge to the
evidence of PW}, there is no difficulty in accep«tir1g«.i_his
evidence. As the insurance Companjfl has '
challenged the assertion on the part of if if
he has left the job on acco11i'nt:'.-A.'odff
disability, there was no need» or' occasivonfufor if the ''
claimant to have prodsicedyitcanyc:'docuimentarywt"evidence
from the Society to the job. In
fact; the Insu;ra.ri_'ee =Co1__n.pany,'* was able to
produce the per Ex.R1, there was
no diffiicnity odhtaiined similar certificate
from uSocVietyV,. appeilant has not left the
job in the Society. "Therefore, having regard to the
,…€,yid€f1cAet 0f1..record';'vJe are of the opinion that the say of
that he has left the job on
acceunt' the accidental disability deserves to be
Jacceptesii and we accordingly, accept the same.
Efiievertheless, having regard to the oral evidence of the
-c’-fioctor, who assessed the physicai disability and the
Certificate produced at Ex.l313. we assess the functional
disability of the appellant at 60%. The appellaritwas
aged about 43 years as on the date of
Therefore, the appropriate multiplier as
per the judgment of the Apex
others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporattoitand another \’
AG] 1298). On this basis}-.the_ totai dyiosis of future
earning works out to .,yA{‘Rs.3,0O(i/- X 12 x
14 x 00/100 1… Theappellantiyis’2’e_ntit.l’e+Vd for the said
sum of future earning
and
9.” Ha’Jing..re’§!ar:d”«to’the nature of injuries and the
durati’on of treatrnent, the award passed by the Tribunal
is just arid reasonable and they do
I1o’t__call __in:t’e’rferenee by this Court.
herefore, in View of the above discussion. the
V’ appeal allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to
total compensation of Rs.ES,O8,306/- as against
Rs.1,97.540/- awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,10,766/– shall carry inter;es_t’~Vat
6% per annum from the date of petition
deposit. y
The second respondent Irisilirer
deposit the entire enhanced'”eonipensation interest it
within six weeks frorrrthe re’c.eipt éfcopy of the
judgment.
the enhanced
wRs.2,00,000/– with
proportionate»”‘in’terest’shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in
the naini’e_’_4.V0f in any Nationalized or
Seliiediiled Bariityforya period of five years, renewable by
‘ ar1oth~eVr’fi:vei”y*e_ars. The appellant is entitled to withdraw
interest, quarterly. The balance amount
of I§s..l;.:lt)i766/- together with proportionate interest
1-
10
shall be released in favour of the appellant, forth=s;Vg:z:i’th’;~._
fiffiee to draw award accordingly.
_ 5″D3E