IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15" DAY 0? SEPTEMBER 2QG§ SfSW
?RESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE.v;G.SASfiA3iTIS'"-f.'
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICSfS,N.SATyANARAiA§A.H*
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP§EAL'NQ.§3?2f200$
BETWEEN: " A '
1 ANNASAHEBA, ,wSSx
S/O SHANKAR=CHOUGAL§s
43HxRS}_Gcc,AGR:cULTuRALV5
Rio cH1KoD1;;S5LSAUM _ M
Q _-- S*g»_'» >,"»_--_ . APPELLANT
{By Sri SACHIN S MASADSM, ADV}
AND :
1;'MS§RASAHEé"sjQ,MonINsAS KAROLI
4 ' MAJOR ace BUSINESS
'_'*_R/Q"ATfiANI. BELGAUM
*2'»THE'MANAGER
. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE co LTD
'BRANCH NIPANI, ASHOK NAGAR
, NIPANI, CHOKODI
*:..POEICY NO HBLRO MOT NO 036485
L°._ "VALID FROM 15~12~2 TO 14--12--3
", ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R ABDUL RAYAZ KHAN, ADV FOR R1
T SRI.A.G.JADHAV, P.B.RAJU, ADV8 FOR R2 )
2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) 0}?’ MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 3.4/O3/2005
PASSED IN MVC NO.3.85/2004 ON THE FILE OF’ CIVIL
JUDGE {SR.DN) & ADDL. MACT, CHIKODI, PAIR-‘.1fI..S’£_
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION F OR COM9ENS}§TI>ON
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING on EOE HEARING EH13 DAY, ”
saxxaunnnxann J., DELIVERED THE EoLLewIwe:.E ‘.j,’
°””””3*
This appeal is £ii§d. §fia;1en§:E§OhWtne
judgment and award .gated”‘ié §}2Qo5 ‘passed in
MVC.No.185/2004 on Efie file bf Ehg Qivil Judge
(Sr.Dn} & Adqitienaljfiécig ¢hikgq:;_*
2. O’I3hOe- fai”::g’;O with one Dhareppa, who was a
3’~~.._”pillioh__i’ider. When they were near Kerur, in
of a Garage, a truck bearing No.KA~–17/A-
being driven in a rash and negligent manner
“I
came behind the motor cycle and dashed against
the same. Due to the said accident, the piliion
rider Dhareppa fell down and died at the s§c£,*e
The claimant, who was riding the motor*eyciehat=w
the relevant point of time, sfistained_gfievousi
injuries on his shoulder &esu1tine~ in ztheit
fracture cf scapula and, aiso “snffetegf other
injuries in the said accixd_en:t.,_ “V.._Vfi’he.fea!fteJ:; the
claimant preferred *st.CieiE[uPéti£iQn seeking
compensation inae sum of*Rs,fi5é6;§hi/h from the
owner, driye; }and_ insurer» of “the offending
vehicle, ., _b s
3. *TheA said aclaimv”was contested by the
respondentsd [by * filing written statement.
h*The£eafterp the Tribunal framed issues and then
€recorded_efiidence of the claimant, who examined
himself as Qfi.1 and also got PW.2 examined to
hsubstantiate his milk vending business and
igefiaminedi Doctor S.B.patil as PW.3 to
“”7
substantiate the injuries that he has suffered
in the accident and marked documents Exs.P1 fa.
P181. Per contra, the respondents did not leadj ,
any evidence but, the third respondent filed thel
insurance policy and got marhed” the as§m¢__as’ W
Ex.D1.
4. Based on the pleadings and evidence en
record, the Tribunalspartiail§ allowed the claim
of the appellant herein and éggguéa Compensation
in a sum of Rs;39,636;;fgL¢ng with interest at
‘6% pa-. payable firom the date of petition till
date of realisation;, »_”
,.§rV’~Beino=e:aggrieved by the same, the
l* appellant ,herein has preferred this appeal
seeking” enhancement of the esompensation on the
id _ground that the Tribunal has not considered the
dl”seyidenced’of PW.3, the Doctor, regarding the
“fdiSahility that he has suffered due to the
ad”. accident, which resulted in loss of income to
‘”W
him, that the Tribunal has failed to award
compensation for the pain and suffering that he i,
has suffered and loss of amenities and”loaS~of”
income during laidwup period tdandei also °
challenging the deduction; made hy the ¢::bufié1i”
while computing the compenaation under the head
loss of future income, c. -on x_ =A~
6. In this appeal; the respondents are duly
served, they entered_anpearnce’and contested the
appeal on meritei’ Heard the learned Counsel for
the paffiiesilh
7. Vbni verification of the judgment and
w_ award, passed “by _the Tribunal and also looking
VH_into_the oral and documentary evidence recorded
hy the Tribunal in support of the claim of the
appellant herein, it is seen that the Tribunal
.u*_Qhile Vcalculating the loss of future income
l.ithough has taken Rs.150/- as income of the
kg.
7
claimant per day, it deducted 1/3″ of the income
as his personal expenses, which is improper.
Hence, the compensation of Rs.31,200/~ awarded,
to the claimant is required to be reassessed and%_”
the same should be enhanced to Rswifiyfifid/ed
Though the Tribunal has awarded ¢ampéasarion:f§£,i’
medical expenses at Rs,55,930fj ‘and isttendantl
and diet expenses at Rs.2}5§O/-, which is just
and proper, it has not tahen into account the
loss of income that the dciaimanrdxhas suffered
during” the._periEx$ when he ~was under treatment
and therefore; ftherWclaimant is entitled to
compensation on th*t”$§nnt at Rs.6,000/*.
nih.;JIt, is xseen” that the Tribunal has also
tanot awarded any amount towards the injury that
he.has suffered and also the pain and suffering
‘Vhe has undergone and no amount of compensation
ris’awarded towards loss of amenities. Hence, a
.1}sunr of” Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards loss of
M1
amenities and another sum of RS.15,000/~ towaros_
injuries and pain and suffering. Taking fall; *
these additional compensation awarded ,inj tot”
account, the claimant, appellant ‘he:ein;[‘wonlo_i}
be entitled to compensation atuEe,1,41;230!; ngn
against Rs.89,630/- awardeda§y.the’TtibnnalgM”
7. In the result; tne,Enpn§i=ls allowed in
part awarding_la,_sgm”flot; §sL1,§:;iéb/– to the
appellant hetein:¢long with inteteat at 6% pa.,
from the “§ateg;_otl’Efietition till date of
realisation;fil7tfinrthet;_’SO% of the enhanced
compensation» is ‘ninéceéé to be deposited in
Fixed “Depoait, in n nationalised bank for a
lelfieriofl of thtee yeats.
fi *Nd?
Sd/-
Judge
sajw
Itzége