High Court Karnataka High Court

Basappa S/O Ramappa Konnur vs Irappa Laxman Kittur on 26 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Basappa S/O Ramappa Konnur vs Irappa Laxman Kittur on 26 November, 2009
Author: B.S.Patil
MFA N0.9117 of 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT 0;' KARNATAKA 4
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD

DATED THIS THE :26?" DAY OF' NOVEMBER' t   _
BEFORE:     T' T
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'.I'ICE' 1z,sa,PA'fi:;  _

BETWEEN:

Basappa, S /0 Ramappa  

Aged about 33 years,'     .    
Occ: Agriculture 85 Vegétablet.V-én'd0_f;v..  " -.
R/0 Belagaii, Tal; Mudh01,_ fl  " 
Dist: Bagalkot,  at P{§ra';:E5agaV;zadi,":« V
Ta1& Dist: }3e_1ga;u'm. _   - "  ...APPE3LLANT
{By Sri. Sa'Vr1j.ajr.'-.  ;'=\.V(::I':\"/:0catVtt}

A N D'; 1 TL VA V'

1. Irappa~LaXma'n Kitxu1*',--- '
aged abdut '<%'i~8_y-ea1%_s,V*~*"'
Qcgicf Businé~.:sH, R/0. (S.P.M.), Tyers,
Béiag-ali Cross Road, Mahalingpur,

 'nTq. M'Ll1dhzCJ'l3 District: Bagalkot,
  V(aOwr_1'erVoft'Spifender Motor Cycle
. "1t.rJo;ti<A~29:;/'L--4»190}

--V 2. Cu)"fie:'sVta1"'I't1surance Company Ltd.,

thrbzzgh its Divisional Oficer,

 A' 'S-fianbag Chambers, Kirloskar Road,
"  = Bejigaum-590002. ...RESPONDENTS

Sri C.S.Ben.:m’, Advocate for R2)

MFA No.9117 of 2006

This miscellaneous first appeal is filed.~~-under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act again.stc._Vthe
judgment and award dated 20.04.2006 passed.piii–‘p:’M”‘v.’C
No.1355/2004 on flxzfikzofthe H AddnjonaLt3vn;Jusge_
(Sr.Dn.) and Additional MACT Belgaum, pa.rtly’ialV[‘oWin’g ”
the claim petition for compensation””‘af1’d.’ ‘”*se–ekingh
enhancement of compensation with’ 8%«_ii1tercst’.«__ V ”

This misceilaneous first appeal coming’~
admission this day, the Cou’r_t”–d_eliVe’1’ved the’fol}.ow_ing>:

L; n

This appeal is seeking
enhancement V 0

2. ” ,__ 0 Wigrievous personal
injurieein on 09.04.2004 due
to the of the motor cycle by its

i*ider;.’~it is iuniieeessary to go into the details of the

aisgpthe dispute is only with regard to the

qumuum;d5»”

3..«._’Th.eic1aimant has examined himself as P.W.2 and

it .pp.i’ti’aei_.doc’t’or, who attended him, as P.W.3. Documents such

_i a.s”w’oLind certificate, disability certificate, xmray film and

§:

MFA No.91}? of 2006

L0

medical bills were produced. The claimant deposedbefore
the Tribunal that he was hale and healthy, and
agricultural work getting an income of
year. He has also contended :that» the
business of vegetable Vending
he was shifted to Sai Orthoiiogedic tilentirei The’?
doctor examined dC}30§Cd suffered
spiral fracture lower injury on the
right thigh apart from other
injuries all docitor has further stated
that, examination, he found
that “was in the right tibia bone and

ainklejvoint and” that thevpatient could not walk for a long

lvdistianczeforvhl to stand for a longer duration. He has further

A’d:ep’osiedi’:”‘th_at:i’V-t.he patient was incapacitated to do hard

worl»: in.__cl’uding the agricultural work. He has found that

:_”‘theo__pat’ieht walks with a limping on the right lower limb

e.__’i;:..:ith”antalgic gait. There was a bony thickening and bony

‘”ir”regL1larity in the lower l/31″ of the right tibia bone,

WN;t_.f:’,:;g&m\f…a

MFA No.91}? of 2006

which, according to the doctor, was the evidenc:eo.f Inalw
union. The claimant was found incapacitated”ihjfai-do
plantar flexion and dorsi flexion of the
The doctor further noticed that t:i’1e”rr1o\{e’irlne;rl1lltiof’right
ankle joint was restricted:

disability was assessed at sirightll

lower limb.

4. The Tribunal icoln:sid.eirei_(I.the evidence on

record and ijaifinding that the
claimant vé%asT,.ea’fnilng day. As the claimant
was aged ‘-30 has taken the multiplier

of 16 whiie4_assessir.g loss of future income due to

So iat”‘ «a.S___.tl1e disability suffered, based on the

‘es.?idene.¢”‘o:f«t’he doctor, the Tribunal has assessed the

piernianeinitii’disability at 13% compared to the whole body

iquand hasgawarded compensation under different heads as

” « “ilndier:

1)% Medical treatment Rs. 2,000/-

2) Pain and sufferings Rs.I0,000/–

§%’:.–‘-

K;

MFA §\IG.9ii7 of 2006

3} Loss of amenities, comfort
happiness, enjoyment of life etc. Rs.15,OO()_/7:_’fi_V

4) Loss of future income due to ~ V ”

disability    .
Total.   A   

Thus, a sum of Rs.79,46O/3: attrarded
along with interest at 6%. i V V.

5. I have heard the parties
and perused theV_n1ateria_l:s_ 1 ..

6. I the injuredwclairnant
taken is unrealistic and is on the
lower claimant on record is, no

doul:;_it,” exaggerated as he claims that he was earning

of Rs.1,00,000/– from agricultural work

business of vegetable vending. The

— acciiiclerit has occurred in the year 2004. The injured was

it haleiiand healthy person aged about 30 years at the

— timewiof the accident. Hence the Tribunal ought to have

MFA No.9117 of 2006

taken at least Rs.3,000/–~ as monthly incomeef the
injured. T T

7. Insofar as the permanent

the Tribunal, 1 do not £1sdtr'”sny«
assessment made is based on the’teA\iidence.bivC;:lAthe
However, the award of / and’
suffering for the nature~..A_of suffered
and the treatment lower side.

Claimant is this head.

Sofar as loss-::_o’f:_ arr1eniities¢: i’sttt’co’neierned, in View of the

malwun-ion iaiadiithe: limping in the right leg and

the otherula-ssociatedydiisemnforts to which the claimant is

su1;ije,ete’ti, he is”‘e«n._tit1ed for a sum of Rs.20,000/» instead

‘o.fliRs.11″5,:OOiO¥[%awarded by the Tribunal. Sofar as the loss

ofsfijiture injcdme is concerned, if the same is computed

i’..»»takingfitl%:ei monthly income at Rs.3,OOO/M and applying

i siIif”t:qe”:t1u1tip1ier of 16, it will work out to Rs.’/4,880/- as

against lRs.52,460/– arrived at by the Tribunal. The

Q . —

K

MFA No.9117 of 2006

eiaimant is not awarded any amount towards
nourishment and other incidental expenses”:Vifieflhas
taken treatment for nearly a month. Therefo:re,.
Rs.5,000/– deserves to be awarded. “h«ead.. b
Thus, the claimant is _entitted'”*__1A’.or ~
compensation under differen’t’=h’eads as’ nnrder:

1) Medical expenses . ” Rs. ‘V2″,0(j0/–

2) Pain and sufferings t’ ‘M t’ v”».VLRs..2O,OO0/–

3) Loss of amenities ” .t&’A’t”«:’s.2o,ooo/~

4)Food and_n:ouArishrn:ent;_ Rs. 5,000/M

5) Loss orhmfa,itneoma “Aé Rs.’7’4,880/~

The clairnanty, for interest on the enhanced

am_o’i:1nt__tA’atvM 6%””per___annum from the date of petition till

r.ea”iiSa’t.ion,’«. -.

accordingly allowed to the above extent.
Parties to bear their respective costs.

sd/-

JUDGE

. ” “-Kms*