IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF sERf1fEMBE1=:,~»2.:O:O:9"*~::: "
BEFORE
THE Homagms MR. JUsT:OE___A.Sf' ROPANNA 1'
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL' 15046-,'é:OO7{Nm
BETWEEN:
CHANNAPPAGOUDA _ _ ; I
S /O SHANAKARAGOU'DAVL'iPOL;_c:E RATIL, '' ..
AGE 52 YEARS, O_Oc':».r3U;S,1IiE:S«S-, --
R/AT NEHARU NAGAIRT, * '-
NEAR SHRINAGAR;"'DHA11§§WAD;'
...APPELLANT
(By Sri. MANJUNATH B/£}31,ED_8:,_Gv..S.H1REMATH, ADVS.)
AND:
1. 'VPRAKAVSH§D...ARvANL§AR,
POST D_EV1_I<iAL..Li, " .....
'v.KU,MTHA( OWNER AND
R:C.E--£QLD'ER"Of? MOTOR CYCLE BEARING
REG,N(_3..K}\ /559-3)
2. NATION-.AL.._iNSU'RANCE CO.L'I'D.,
_ BRANCH ..AT«:_NO.628,
" 'V A KUMTHA ROAD, KARWAR~581301,
A {I~N'SURER OF' HEROHONDA
._"c'Ov';ER NOTE NO228361)
{1;§y.Sfi. S.K.KAYAKMA'I'H, ADv.ROR R2)
"1<1NET1c'NO.KA 30/5593
RESPONDENTS
A
‘G
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF.A~«~NI.\_fA.A’CZ’T”
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED Os’-,!o8A/2oo7’v—~.I I-
PASSED IN MVC No.86/2004 ON THE F’ILE___QF._ I.i’~_
ADDL.CIvIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND ADDI,;+.».MACfT, VD’H[vAR’WAD,ve-V ‘
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR CoM:r»E.NsLAT1o’N
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPE«NSiA’1’1ONEE.’~. ” _
THIS APPEAL COMING ON F’C}I§”‘~QRDE1?:S
COURT DELIVERED THE EOLLOwING:=,,_ H .
JUD’€ii\/Ii’+Ti-fl ; it
Shri. S. K. Kaya}é:in_ath,:=_learned’eCoI;1’nselifis stated to have
entered appearanéie Registry to notice the
same and indiicate ‘the’,narfie’as’appeari’ng for respondent No.2.
The ckairnant iiisibefore thi.srC’ourt seeking enhancement of
compensation as auga-inst”thex’s1im awarded in MVC No.86/2004.
awardediitihe total compensation of Rs.44,000/–.
2]’ .WhileV enhancement, even though it is contended
the 1earned”.CoLInse1 for the appeklant that the Tribunal has not
i.’vco4nsi’dered._.the”‘disabiiity as stated by the doctor at 14 – 18% to his
-4″_I~ieft.Ei–1pAAper 1iin’o, I am also not convinced to accept that, in the facts
. ‘ “the”case any particular disability is to be reckoned.
J)
“1
3. In this regard, it is noticed that the claimant;*11–o.’_’eloiJbt.V”
had suffered the fracture of left clavical bone and the
was examined as PW2 has stated with rgegard to
referred to the disability to the upper 1imh’—-Ain=.the i’nann.er.< V
However, it is noticed that neither the who
had treated the claimant, noii'"h_as sié1ii.'ii'doctoristated with
regard to the disability to in View the
avocation of the claingaiitcjidih to be noticed is
that the said doctor isimal union and also
considering was engaged in selling
churarnari on:Vwhoi.esa}:eVi the injuries suffered and
the manner of recovery would cause some discomfort.
Thjerefore,§:ii'nd:_er the saidvhead, a sum of Rs.10,000/– is awarded.
That: instant case, the disability cannot be
' Vtrreckoneelr for the'ip}1Ieip0se of granting any compensation towards
_jhii.oss'Vof futureiiearning, the amount awarded towards loss of
flarneriitiesiiné life is on the lower side and as such a further sum of
if /H– is required to be awarded.
i
.9