Chinkra Kulal S/O Shiva Kulal vs Gulam Faruk S/O Haji Mohidin on 6 January, 2010

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE em DAY OF JANUARY, 2010
BEFORE N

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE L NARAYANAs*v»*A:;:y'  " 

M & SCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9_24/2AQ0Q.:'{1\;1V') G' ' ., 'VG 

.B...IE'l..._'V..'.Y.E..E...1'.J.I.

CHINKRA KULAL.
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
SON OF SHIVA KULAL,  »
R/O NEAR: RAMSON HIGH SC.HOOL;_._v
KAVRADY VILLAGE ANDPOST, " ' *
KUNDAPURA TALUK.   _ *   I 

 V  :   .;;,AI->I>EI.LANT
{BY SRLPAVANA CIIA1§:DmjsHEf1f1*I* PI, ADVOCATE}

1. GIJLAM  
AGEDABOUT40.Y_EARS.
. A, SON OF HAJI MOIIIDIN,
 R/O KAN£)LOQR POST,
' 5£§¥JNDAPURZX"FALUK.

    A. f*I*I{I'E4NAT:ONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

'13RA.NC;H' OFFICE, IST FLOOR,
GANESH MAHAL,
MUI-EICIPAL MAIN ROAD,

~~ KUNDAPURA TALUK.
 ...RESPONDENTS

A  .gEY"~«_sm.E.C.sE  RAO, ADV. FOR R-2)

 * v--'';}UDGEMENT AND Aw

MFA FILED U/S 73(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
DATED: 10.122008 PASSED IN



2
MVC NO.221/2007 ON FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE {SRDNJ
MEMBER, MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. V. 

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING -I;:5AY,
THE comm' DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _  I »  ---  :.- 

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the cizaimiant? appieilant

for enhancement of the compensation” being agg”1*’i_:evIcId “bf the C

judgment and award dated. __in_I§ M V C
No.221/2007 on the fiie :It)f.ti’1§: ::IvII””;IIEIgc _{Sr.Dn.) & M A C
Tat KuI1dapura;– _ ” V L L. C V C

‘Iript in dispute. The ciairns tribunal
while asVsessingV_.Lt1ife. Cc0IiIpe’nsation towards loss of future

income dfie _:t0=.tiisa”biiit.y has taken the income of the

Acia.-i1{I1aI’1t at RsL.vé3O’/?.N The appellant has stated in his

”_:he was working as a Mestry of building

co_nStmCtiG3n’CV:w0rk. The accident has occurred in 2006.

Thoughithe claimant w aged 60 years. his income which is

at Rs.80/– is on t e lower side. Therefore, it is just

Z3

and reasonable to take Rs.150/- per day and calculate the

loss of future income due to 100% disability.

3. The monthly income of the claimant

Rs.4500/–. After deducting onewthird

expenses, the income Woulé cornertoi land, the

annual income would be ”

multiplied by the rnultip1ierV:””l.Q, tlhett1esultaii_t””‘fig’dre is’

Rs.3,60,000/– as against assessecl by the

claims Tribunal.

4. In the.resu1t,.-thisifappeal in part. The

appelVlant–clain.1anti.isentitledhtowenhanced compensation of
Rs. 1,6A8,Q0Q/~ ‘carry interest at 6% from the date

of petitionllltilliltlisdate payment. The second respondent

‘l V’ ‘is”lver;.lCiz'<-i:–fcteci- to depvolsitthe compensation amount along with

four weeks from the date of receipt of

of.t.ll1li's-filizdgrnent.

sa/~
EUEEGE

= .. –:§:<d*