MFA l3¢€5é%:'2U(}7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED Tms THE 25TH DAY OF' NOVEMBER, 2009"
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MKJUSTICE B.S.1=ATiL__:' . ' "' '
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL.'NO;'1<34$¢4/.;2-(50?
Between:
BASAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA NANDIHALLI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC:COOL1E &AGRIL., ' _ ._
Now NIL, R /O CHACHAD1,'TAL:SSO,UNDA'IfT1, .
DIS'1':BELGAUM. ' q , * "APPELLANT
And:
1. SH1vA'ERA:_I MAHAEEV BADADALLI
AGE:40 Y'EAR.S.,.=OCC:BUSINESS
Ra?/O YOGIKOLLA ROAD,
"I.I:1di.,CRO_SS, COEAK,
"«.,DISf1':BE-.LG-AUM.
2. " ._ "'SEN1O'R.pN7i'S1ONAL MANAGER,
' BAJA_.J ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
GRC..UND' UPPEER FLOOR, VIVEKANAND CORNER,
DESAI. CROSS, CLUB ROAD,
.. , HUBLI--58O O29. RESPONDENTS
{Hy._Sfi;'C.M.PoonaCha, Adv appearing for
" 'TM/S.Lex Plexus, Adv for R2)
M FA 1 3454,-'2{)07
ix)
This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated 13.08.2007 passed in
MVC No.2764/2003 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)
and Addl. MACT, Gokak, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation'."*_
This appeal coming on for admission, this dayi,..t4ii»ei:'Cio31pr'ty.
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsel for tiieiiiparties», .3 i
2. This appeal is filed by the jclaimant seeking:e.nha1’iceme’r1ti
of compensation. The Motor iiii’teCidentsi”.(:lai:ii.;s iiffriihunal,
Gokak, by the judgment and award i’-},3.08.iIi2iOO”7i made in
M.V.C.No.2T/64/2003 has in a sum of
Rs.66,2-40/~ pay:ab’lie jaionig With: iate’re_st_iatf’6i% p.a. from the
date of cjlaiifnpetition.ptii«l,_iiteali.sation and has fastened the
liability on theiioiwner and iinsiurer jointly and severally.
_ 3. pIr.ian..acciden.tVithat occurred on 12.10.2003, the injured-
Velaimant vii/’ho a pedestrian was dashed against by the rider
ofi’the-i’_i_notoi*’cycl.eVhearing registration No.KA–23/R1288. The
ielaimant sfusta’ined grievous injuries. He was shifted to
it”‘i:T’.i”Dir’.R.B.Patagundi’s Hospital for treatment. The claimant had
ii’su£fe’redr’ifractural injury in the left humerus and left elbow
from other injuries. Contending that the injuries
MFA %3454./2C}(}7
DJ
incapacitated him from discharging his duties a__s an
agriculturist, he moved the Claims Tribunal
compensation.
4. The claimant examined himsel,f~as._PWi:lTiian’diprodiuceid,
and marked several documents iricludirfg tine”
wound certificate, medical bills;iidi’sability’-certificateijdischiarge ” T
summary and the X–ray apart “i°ec_ordi§of rights
to show that he owned 31 land’ The
claimant coritendedsthat / — per month.
The claimant _tiie:doctcrlvvhowtreated him as PW-
4. The he had operated and
treated the that there was swelling and
tendernessionithei left on the left arm. He noticed
bony t.ti’ickeninig..,3fidii irregularity on the left elbow which
rendered idisablediiitio carry heavy Weight. The doctor also
hii~s_i.evidence that the claimant. was not in a
if position to_.dn_iidaily routine work as he will not be able to lift
* Ashouldei’ above his head and movements of the left elbow
if restricted and painful. He has assessed the disability in
of the fractured limb at 60%. The Tribunal has
MFA l 3454.f2{){)7
proceeded to assess the compensation payable taking the
monthly income earned by the claimant at Rs.2,400/:«”‘ad.r1_’d_i’the
permanent disability suffered by him at 5%.
amount is awarded as compensation: M _
Towards pain and agony
Towards medical expenses
Towards attendant charges Rs…’
Towards food and tra.n:sportat;yion”‘ _
Charges r i 7 ‘ v__3,000/~
Towards lossiofiv-earning»dtr:ring~ti:e ‘
Period ofE.rea§;lfa<;1e11t A " 7,200/-
Towards .loss_To_fearni.ng.:.¢a;p'acityg Rs. 23,040/–
Tovfardsliloss. of _ *
Hapvpmessand.t'Ert1strati_o'11_ " Rs. 2,000/-
Rs. 66,240/–
.i the learned counsel for the parties and on
pelrL1sial__«oVf’ ‘e,yidence on record particularly that of the
V doctor}! “that the Tribunal has seriously erred in holding
.t”l’.1_,;i’V,;1L” the claimant suffered permanent disability to an extent of
The doctor has clearly opined that in the left upper
‘:l_4lim–b;l the claimant has suffered 60% disability. The doctor has
U
MFA l3454x’2007
vividly narrated the nature of incapacity suffered the
claimant on account of the mal»union of the fraCti_i’r’e.;*–.The
claimant is an agriculturist who has to necessarily =
hard physical labour to earn his liveli_hoo_d. Iiiiitheiifivghtr ofpthep ii’
evidence of the doctor, the Tribunal-._ 0L:;’g’h.t’ to>._ha\_}”e
proper and fair assessment ofthe loss. of Vearninjg,v«-.eap.acity–. L’
resulting from the permanent Considered
View, it is just and app.ro’prieite the permanent
disability at 15% having of the doctor
who has said disability in the
left upper 4. ii i
6. In income is concerned in the
absence ofifany othei’i’acicepitable material or independent
evidence’ ad_duced-bp_3if’the claimant, I am not inclined to disturb
b3tmthe Tribunal holding that the claimant
— pimp However, the amount awarded
2 towards difI’ereint heads particularly with regard to loss of
–. ,.ff'<an1eAnities pain and suffering requires to be modified. In
the fair and reasonable compensation can be worked
i Qutih the facts and circumstances of the case as under:
E
MFA l34S4/2007
6
Compensation Compensation
Awarded by axvarded”hy
the Tribunal the Hxig’§’.’_”C’0}.,11’t
Loss of future earning
Capacity Rs. 23,340 _/ — M
Loss of amenities in life I§’.s;”‘2»,OO0f:- V
m ”
on
Towards pain and agony R /L;.. V
Towards medical expensesit-.__gs.15,000,/’fit i’ V
Attendant charges 1.L,AOOC)i/”~i — -Rs,..1§,00O/-
Food and nutrition f Rs. 3,000/ \
Loss of earnings dL11fih’g”t}ii’C V 1 r
Period of t:eai,ine’nt 2: Rs..fV7..2OO/» Rs. 7,200/-
A ~ i-vRs§i66,24o/– Rs.1,35,320/–
7. Thus, appeai in part. The claimant is held
entitled for total ucornipevnsation of Rs. 1,155,320/–. The claimant
:”.i_sae’ntit1′”er1 inte_rest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
V “their own costs,
the’–~date -p4ayvirie’ii.t-v’on the enhanced amount. Parties to bear
., M)
“E 1′
3.!”
,3;
§'””’%
«,2 ;=<
'.5
'L./" M;
¥”‘;.:>-
i .2
T”-“‘ “1?”
giozt
4
Q,
0″‘
—