High Court Karnataka High Court

Abdul Mohidin vs Ithu Shetty on 3 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Abdul Mohidin vs Ithu Shetty on 3 September, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao H.Billappa
  

 _ ' R/O.N6'W«:_HO1.ISE2 Guthu,
  _B.a.3'1u Pervaje,
" ._ ".f'KarkalaTa1uk,
_'  Lfdupi District.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SE?rEMBER..2OOéj"'«V,A
PRESENT  V' "

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE    A'  A

THE HC)N’BLE MR.JUS-IICE’l¢I’.V’I3ILLA’P¥’3j§.. I
MFA.No.6981 (MW A

EWETWWMEHEES;

Abdullvlohidin, A
s/o.Isma1’I Saheb, I

Aged aboui 25:-jzears’; » VA ”

R/a.Sa1nVeTeri’a.MI\kIéia3zj1,A’ A’
Gudde;Vangadi,AV5Aje}fiafr Pdst, .

Karkala TaIuk,V'    A '

Udupi D1'<;.t1*ict.'  "    ..APPELI..ANT

(By K.A;’uCh%J1:ndfas.b.ei§é1r. Adv. ,)

S ;fo}’Omay3?;-_. Shetty,
Aged about .64 years,

45/

2. The New India Assurance Co..

Rep. by its Manager,

Branch Office: Ramabhavana Complex,
Kokialbail, Mangaiore Branch,

Mangalore. 5 ~

(By Sri.Vishwanath S.Shettar, Adv.”‘for.R–1_3iV it 2 .

Notice to R1 dispensed with Vide i’;_’/ ” xi

This MFA is filed under.,ej1\E’;ectiori r1735-in ‘ i

Act against the judgment and”‘a_w’ard dt;.’3§7’–O4} passed
in MVC.No.489/02 orifithe fi1’e=o:f the 1ear’ned~’Pr1.CiVi1
Judge (Sr.Dn.] & Add}. )MACT;,i vU’d__U.pi;i partly allowing
the claim petition for ‘compensatinond’ ‘and seeking
enhancement of.compe1’i:-sation’; _ d ” ~

This _ hearing this day,
K.SREEDHA_R ’41., dzifhfvered the=fo11owing:–

{The a15p.e11ant–;5’etitioner sustained fracture of left

“‘ferri1;ir Eaiid”t’ injury “to sciatic nerve in a motor vehicle

‘accident;-. ., dy – . V .1 ~*

‘ The occurrence of accident, the negligence of

A {T”thed”d_.riVer of the offending vehicle and the coverage of

45/

insurance is not in dispute. The appeal is filed seeking
enhancement of compensation.

3. The petitioner was a Mechanic in a.._’private

garage. In the absence of credible proof of *

income to be assessed at iiocitof, T

has stated there is one inch of

account of the femur fractur:e£*~._pgThhe wlinibi is T’

assessed at 45%. Keeping the._short’eni1’ig of left
ieg and the injury to VA is just and

reasonable toassiess ithei disability at 15%.

The income 1oss.prjop,oriti:onate to the disability wouid be

Rs.450/– ip.”1n.,. _ .:reconsideration of facts and

evidenced,’ the ‘petit__i_e>_n.er is entitled to compensation of

=«.:for_pain and agony, Rs.25,000/– for loss of

arneriities”~7a:n_dVTfuture discomfort and Rs.18,000/– for

‘gloss of inchoéme during the 1aid–up period. The medical

T 5i_”biV11Ts”*~._are produced for Rs.40,000/–. Rs.55,000/– is

anrarded towards medicai and incidentai expenses. The

+t

am.

4
petitioner wouid be entitled to (R3450/– income x 12

months X 18 rnuitipiier) Rs.9’7,200/– towards loss of

income on account of the disability. The petittoneVr’e£.e’;e.iVn

all, entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,45;2’oo.;/V;§.fd _

against Rs.98,00()/– awarded by the Tribnli-aij.”V. ‘4 W

enhanced compensation, interest pga3Iab1’e. is””6’3/cV:”aep.:s;:,e_A

from the date of petition tilfthze date of The

entire enhanced compensationdddjshallv to the

petitioner, without pro§fi’3Aion”–foi’§«, Deposit.

Sd/3w

Sd/1,: \
JUDGE

BS3.’