IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCEEAT DI-IARWAD. ,. DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2;)'1'e.'.[ _ PRESENT _ _x% V THE HON'BLE MR.-JUSTICE E .. xi THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEARAVINE Miscellaneous Firs L Appeétl' A f Between: l l . ll .v AA Sri Channappa Mud.aé:e:ppa Age: 34 years, Occ: Gotggndi and Coolie. f V R/0 Benkoppa, 'l'g:1'f Nja.ragu'nd _ Dist. Gadag ;j_ ~ .. Appellant (By Sri sanjay S.Katatgerj_,f9Ad\;§eat_¢;_ ; And: A V l 1 V H 1. Sri Dast§=.girsa13RK..l\Iadeig 'Age: Majpr, Occ: Bu"siness; Rio Somawar Peth lllll H 'Cxokak..D1st. i3C'lg,_21"L!1fn 2. Unlltedllndié Co.Ltd. ;,Branci1__ No. 24., 1's,-tfloor Ashok Nagarh, Nippani through its VA l . V_ .D1'v_isional "Office, Maruti Galli W H u " vBelga11:rl .. Respondents
“–Af”una Deshpande, Advocate for Sri A.M.\/enkatesh,
” Ady0c’ate;for R-2, R-1 served)
filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the Tribunal:
“1. Whether the petitioner proves that the’ V’
of the Goods Tempo No.KA–29/2663
negligent in driving the vehicle and caused__acc’id:ental:Vl,_.if
injuries to the petitioner as allegedlin lpetitior1”?» a, if
2. Whether the petitioner is: entitle’d_T”*for
compensation? If so, to what ariioiiiitppand lwhom?
3. What order an”d..awardl?l””
aihedmmmngmhmmafixmmmagnfiimmemmmwd
one Dr.S.R.Angadi who issueldltheldisability certificate
to the claimantd .eI.nT.slL3’ppolrt cliaimifthe claimant got marked
EX.PI to n_c:t lead any oral evidence but
got marked to the vehicle in question
as Ex.D1. On of the pleadings of the parties, evidence on
record andfllthieisubmissionsmade, the Tribunal allowed the claim
petitio_:n’l’ judgment and award dated 11.06.2004
ill’s»…gwarded’a’lltotalcojijiipensation of Rs.75,000/– under the following
.hh¢a53:
“ii”p1.plnj’u1y, pain 85 sufferings Rs.40,000~0O
Medical treatment 82; indicental
expenses Rs.20,000–0O
3. Towards nutritious diet, conveyance Rs.
4. Towards loss of amenities, comfort,
happiness and expectations in life A M
Total
It is this judgment and award, whichii’s.nowassai1ed iifiiithisg
appeal.
4. We have heard Sri Sanjay S.i{ata.gei’lii,flearned counsel for
the appellant–clairr1arit_anc[l liéieshpande, learned
counsel for the Cornpany. Though the
Is: reSp0Ddet:.t.is.,serire;d;§:.;he unrepresented. Having
heard learned ‘for the parties, the point that
arises for considerationiiisiii ”
Wh,e:ther’~the cornpensation awarded under judgment and
award by the Tribunal is just and proper or it
requiresthe-nthanciernentiand if so, to what extent?
Sri Sanjay S.Katageri, learned counsel for the appellarit
‘ciointend that disability certificate produced by the claimant
marked at Ex.P1O has not been considered in its proper
fin
3. Compound fracture cuboid bone of left foot.
4. Fractura Calcaniurn sustentacuiern Tali of the left
foot.” ‘ » A
This evidence of the doctor has remained .unchall=erige’d i.ve.,u
the Insurance company has not cross–eX_am;ine;i the doctor this
certificate issued by PW2. It is the-._speciiic_ ‘case tofu”t.he._ciai3mant.ii’
that he is unable to do the work ‘vvasi prior to the
accident and on account of there has been
disability to the left foot to an nature of work
he was carrying on it is not possible
for him to do the;’sair1.e who has been examined
has denied Zithiem respondent that the
petitioner~clai’rnariit do the routine work as he was
doing earlierr The-Vdisabilitykcertificate having not been disputed
an-tithe nconipanyihaving not chosen to contradict this
evideniceiiviz.A,”-the:’disability certificate EX.PlO either by seeking
:'”Y._reference. to anoltvhierciz doctor or by producing any other contra
Vihrnaterial to disprove this fact, we have no other option but to
~thiVs”d.isability certificate which is at Ex.P1O and accordingly
ii”-4v.te_ do so? In the said disability certificate it is concluded that the
to the left foot is to the extent of 35%. Thus, the whole
%}M…
body disability can be arrived at is 1/31″ of the disability–__to the
particular limb ie, at 10%.
8. We have seen from the judgrnent»and the i
Tribunal that it has not taken into consideratioin the_lfuture”
earning capacity of the claimant”‘–~on account livof injury”?
sustained. Having held that the to the en.t..ire_.body is to
the extent of 10%, the compe:i1satior:{.g’lobe’awarded under this
head is to be accordingly calculated. “the claimant was
doing Coolie work earned per day
would be can be taken into
considerationiyouldielgge p.1_:1.W’I’he disability to the whole
body with reie«reI:ce limb being 10%, the loss of
income would p.m. Accordingly the total
compensatibnggggpayablel’under the heading loss of future earning
wouldbel€’s:.A30.tjXl2<eRs.3,6O0/– p.a. and the relevant multiplier to
applied age of the claimant at 33 years would be 16.
_j:lThus,V.gthe totaljcompensation payable under the head "loss of
4:£u£izl-to-j» earning" would _be Rs.3,60()xl6==Rs.57,600/– and
iidlaccordinigly We award the same.
9. In so far as the loss of amenities is concerned, the
Tribunal under the heading loss of expectation in 1i’f¢,’v.”fIp,§sv.. of
comforts and happiness has combined the loss of gainenities
has awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/ –_. ».~Hence.’thei4ll i
awarded under the heard loss of amenitieisi”also*–requi:es:”to “be
enhanced by granting an additi5_:ia1.. sum of. 5 and”.
accordingly, the same is awarded;-..Vg’ Thus ha’ totali sum of
Rs.67,600/- is awarded bylwaiy pofi«’en.hancein:en«t’under these two
heads. Hence the following orderis 1 * ‘
(1) The appealiiieslgallowed ‘iii p.ar.f_t.ll
(ii) ‘;{_:’he< [ enhanced by Rs.67,600/~
toigether 6% p.a. from the date of
_ .petitior1 tilldie date "of payment.
iltheilgjsaid enhanced amount, 50% of the amount
l’ ,5iarithlipiioportionate interest shall be kept in a fixed
depi1;sit in a nationalised bank’ for a period of five years
lilifand the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw
periodical interest. The remaining 50% with
Pmg/
(iv)
proportionate interest shall be reieased in favouzjof the
appellant– ciaimant forthwith.
No costs.