IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE ST" DAY OF MARCH 20.
PRESENT
THE HCNBLE E\/IRSJUSTICEZ »PvLANJI'jLA T T'
A N '
THE HON'BLE 1;/IR.§§'~1.TS~T1C£§"A,S'.BC3.P}L$TNA
M.I«'.Ari_Io. 8198/2084
BETWEEN:
i. DEvA;\1NAA.:.%iAA A ;
5/0.N'1NC*3'S1?PA MAG.AL'31NN1
48 'OCC:4"C.QNTRAC.:TOR AND
11/ O HU€3AG'I;T SH_0RAP'UR TQ,
GIJLBARGA'DIST,'1\IQW R/O H.NO. 18,
KHUBAPL'OT';N.VVLC,OLLEGE ROAD,
V.(}ULE5ARGA,'.
' A " ~ APPELLANT
'(D"y':s1:iACsACH11§SAMACADUM & SHASAN GOWDA.
1. KHAJAPPA s/0 MEHABOOBSAB
D MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER OF MARUTH1 CAR
BEARING REG.NO.KA--36 /M--1343
AT POST: SIRWAR
MANVI TALUK, RAICHUR DISTRICT
[Q
2. DR VLIAYASIIANKAR N
MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF MARIITHI CAR
BEARING REO.NO.KA-36/M4343
H.NO.185/1, MAIN ROAD AT POST SIRWAR
TALUK MANV1, RAICHUR DISTRICT I A or A '
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGEIK 1-
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE Co. ._L'1'D.;, ' I
RAICHUR, THROUGH ITS * '
HEAD OFFICE SITUATED AT. I .
OPRIVIINIVIDHANA SO_UDHA"~~ % I
GULBARGA
RES.POi\FDENTS
(By Sri SANGANAGOUDA "'.f.BIR'_'A'j_D.AR, ADV. FOR M /s
CHETANA AssTs, FOR R1 "&f'RfZ; _
sRI UDAY P.HONGUNTI'KiAR.__ ADV;'vFQR. R3)
M.E.A;It»Is;::EIeLED U:/'ts 1°73['1')"3F MV ACT AGAINST
THE JI.II)C;IvIEIss*Ii A Aim» AWARD DATED: 3.6.2004
PASSED IIIIIWVIC NO.4siI82,I2?o03;:ON THE FILE OF THE IV
ADDL. "" 'DI€:3TR1§if;j"1' "~~ICJIIn,o*éE;IMACT-m, GULBARGA,
PARTLY--_ CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENsAT'IO'Nj_ij~.AN.O».s--EEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION In .
This ap'pea1__'CVcoming on for hearing this day,
. i " CHELLUR J ., delivered the following
JUDGMENT
neaidi. Perused the records.
The present appeal is filed by the injured claimant
seeking enhancement of Compensation awarded by the
M A’ “Tribunal in Iv1.V.C.I82/03. We have gone through the
evidence and records. So far as involvement of the
vehicles is concerned, i.e. Maruti car and the niotoiicycle
on which the appellant was proceeding,__§_:thore=..:
dispute. A complaint came tomlne lodgev’d.::f_aga.inst
driver of the Maruti-car and char :;’*sheet_wa’s also filed.
Based on the evidence of °t_he~…injured andfxpolicve”records,”
the trial court concluded accidstnt Vvias due to
rash and negligent of Maruti car.
Even othervvise,v._ so far as such
3. _’ question of quantum of
compensation,’recoi’ds=–rleveal that the claimant sustained
fra.g€;tum3 of tibia and ‘even after taking treatment,
.A :accor_ding:to,him, he is not able to do his normal work as
if agriculturist, as he gets pain in the right
leg’ a long distance or stands for a long time.
2 cannot lift heavy articles and therefore, there is
‘loss of future income.
“‘~«.M\M’S:-»..” _. ” I,
4
4. PW2~doctor has opined that there is 12% disability
so far as the right lower limb is concerned and ‘there is
restriction of movement. However, he does.w.’indioate_
in the form of answer that the >_app_elianf,’_», goiild
indulge in any agricultural or c’0ntractua1_ op:erati’or1fi,l1e
only says he may feel pain”‘~when”-
motorcycle by kicking, that the
appellant is totally a two wheeler.
Taking into_, the learned
single « as general and
special’ d’arn;a;ges’}’fi.; “- – _
5. ilearriedl’singlealudge has not awarded any
confi_pe11.sation’~ towards loss of income during the laid–up
f awarded only Rs. 10,000 / — towards injury,
pain anfc’_l–._ suffering. Taking into consideration his
avolcationvthat he may have to stand for long hours both
if firikzontract work and agricultural work, definitely there
will be lot of discomfort, if not loss of future income in
carrying out his work efficiently. Taking into
5
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are of the opinion another Rs.20,000/a deserves to be
enhanced to meet the ends of justice.
6. Accordingly the appeal is
enhancing compensation by Rs.§2.0,QQO ‘ .
the rate of 6% pa. from the date
Six weeks time is granted to -tfiheV»31′<1hrespond_ent"to"deposit
the amount.
sa/-=
EEEEEGE