IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY 01+' sEPrEMBERAV.2;_Jfi$"- v. V.
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICi?3"
AND
Ac mire aha um; 'THE HONBLE MR.JU$TICE sLsATYANAR5YA,;vA_VV
°"'""'°"' ""'&"' M FA NO 6%/ostmxn " *
ckt . 1.1.0? _
(
BETWEEN:
('~""5"3-,"§ PMAHABUSAB V
suotak s/0 HONNURSA}?3,«_' ; § ~ :
37YS,OCC:NV1§, _ _ _ '
R/O MoKA;v:LLAG2--:-_V « *
BELLARY '£'A§,UK_ zg.VI)1s1.r~R_i'C:'?5:?_.A A:
V _ 2 _ APPELLANT
(By HAr¢m.¢Anr:f;-1Aie._ED~:jir SAHLIKAR, A{)V., )
' 1 - KjD_O'i)13A BASAPPA
~. S/O."_BAL"3A'PPA
MAaoI~je.,'T
= OWNER OF LORRY N0 AP so/@7342
~12/0 SANGANAKALLU VILLAGE
, --, .. ISFSLLARY 'I'A£.UK & D¥S'I'RlC'I'.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
'THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE co LTD
EDIGA HOSTEL COMPLEX
I FLOOR, DOUBLE ROAD, BELLARY
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri G.N.RAlCHUR, SR1 GNARAYANA mo FOR R-2,
R1 SERVED) .
MFA FILED u/see 173 (1) OF M’! AC’? AG1§i1s:$§*f:i “1#1:;E
JUDGMENT we AWARD mmo: 6.8.2004 Passwm ;.x<;ve._._1m.
365/ 2003 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL (SR;D'1'*!._)'
MAC'?-V, BELLARY, PARTLY ALLOWBBIG THE.
FOR CGMPENSATWON AND SEEKINC3 ENHANQEMENQ . _ "
COMPENSATIGN.
THIS MFA coM1NG7o«:sI ma’. m«:As:~I’:+i<'3'v:f1fi»1I<.§;
sawmmsvma 3., DEUVERVQES-MTHE 1»*oLLQv_.:_1N'e: "
This3is':elaim£§§e{fe_j§:ppeai::V" enhancement of
compenS$:£§z;x:1"""' MVC No.365/2003 on
6.8v;2(")"04A,: s=h":v:A{tr., Bellaly.
* to this appeal are that on
V..'§,.'2u.'29O3 herein was riding his Motor cycle
bC«.'§TI_V'iAI1g4VA.NO'.KA-34/J-1957 from Moka to Bellary. At
H a.1n., when the clean' -ant was proc6e€11I1_ ' g
smyean the ma side of the road near Shivapura, a
'A bearing No.AP-30/T-7342 came from the opposite
'elirecflon with great speed in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed against the motor cycle on which
the claimant was t1'a.ve1li11g. As a result of that, he
sustained fractures and several injuries. The petmoner
"*1
was taken to VIMS Hospital for treatment and tiiefeetter
he was shifted to Sanjeevini Hospital,
was treated as in-patient.
3. It is the case otthe ma: $”aid.f .
accident he sustained knee,
right proximal aed third
Inetatarpal bones or%egh:ep suffered the
said petition seeking
the insurer of the
proceedings, both the
mspofieettts by their counsel and filed
stat;:i11ent Vvveootested the claim petition. The
e issues and recorded evidence wherein
H “a:1’u mm’ self as PW 1, to prove the
mjuees hettifered in the accident, he examm ed the
2 ~ as PW2 in support of his claim and marked
xtcloeuments at Exs.P1 to P83.
4. In the said proceedings, though the
respondents-1 and 2 entered appearance and fled
“”7
separate written statements, they did not
evidence. The 2” respondent _
documents namely driving licence, _xero–:«'<f " =
permit and xerox copy of
the ofiending lorry. Based V' on *
record and also the =1par.1'c'e~–d_ said
proceedings, the the claim
petition award.ing_ Rs.1,'79,700/-
witha pay the same.
-_ aggrieved by the
quantdm d awarded preferred this
eahanoement of the compensation
Tribunal. In this appeal, both
E served. However, the 18* respondent
did xfiot eontest the matter and the 2nd respondent-
». Company is represented by its counsel.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
both the parties and perused the judgment and award,
“”7
the depositions and the documents marked
Tribunal in support of the claimant.
7. On going through itis
the relevant point of time the. *
the claimant was aged 35 In
the said accident injuries which
neeessiated of 46 days
and due shortem11g’ of his
leg by, thigh and restricition
of it is also seen that he has
spent V. towards medical expenses
1$ei*io-z_1___when he was hospitalised and in
‘ same he has examined the Doctor who
as l ted’ “as PW2 in Sanjeevini Hospital and
Vmediml bills Exs.P6 to P69. The doctor has
A “ii opined that the claimant has suffered disability to
l. the tune of 25% to whole body.
8. It is seen that the Tribunal while assessing
the compensation towards loss of future income has
“‘1
v __is 66::
taken into consideration the income of the claimant; as
Rs.60/- per day and after deducting 1/3rd H
gemsnal expenses and applying the ‘ ”
has awarded Rs.57,600/ – towa1’dj’Smlbss
It is seen that the ‘I’I’ib1.m_al ..
income of the claun’ am; at )’.- ds–_.€_y”Aa”11d
should have been as _Ev2§’.’ daf By taking
the income of the cla1’111Ta’,if_1Vt’ day, the
clann’ ant wogjlti’ as again’ st
Rs.57,600,l,%V”t§”}§€§;§:ds 1r )Vss oéf earning. Hence, on
that that is I’equ1red° to
be awaI’d€:d_V%%is ~. So far as the medicai
fled, though the claimant has
-.—‘~_
to the tune of Rs.1,18,500/-, the
rejected the claim of Rs.70,000/-
_on that the claimant has not examined the
J who has treated him and also not confmnted the
” which are prescribed by him. Nodoubt, in this
case, the ciaim/ant has examined PW?-
I)r.M.J.Shashidhara Reddy who has clearly stated that
“*1
when the claimant was in the hospital, all the
that were used for his treatment were
outside and none of the medicineswere
from the hospital and he
claimant was in hospital me ~ gays and * %
expenses towards ‘iheevelaimant
himself. That the eeeeee will suflice to
believe the _ of he has spent
Rs. 1, 18,535 and the same
are at Ex.P-6 to 68 and
there L no e ,.:d.isbe1ieve the same and
cempensetien’ of}. – awarded towards the
be increased to Rs.1,18,500/~.
of the claimant is taken at Rs. 100/ ~
less of earning during the period of
also requires to be increased to Rs.6,000/- as
Rs.3,600/~. in addition to the aforesaid
. __e_;i1hanceInent, the claimant is also entitled to
R_s.30,000/- towards loss of amenities which the
Tribunal has overlooked to award. Considering the
“‘1
modificatien in the quantum of awani as ab¢vé;;”– f.h¢
claimant would be entitled to receive total
0fRs.3,20,500/-as against 1,79,7e~3/A–. %
9. Accordingly, tlxis-$PP€8lV_”i’s
The cla1’Inant is entitied to ” ‘vs: in a
sum of Rs.3,20,500/wvfirlth p.a. from the
date of petition-tivli th¢:vd:,.§1;§:» of”
The to deposit the compensation today. The $61' the total award
among: kept iii The said order
appliés pompensation also.
Sd/-..
Iudge
Sdi-?-A
Tudge
?1*LQ