High Court Karnataka High Court

Devaraj vs Muthuraju K on 22 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Devaraj vs Muthuraju K on 22 November, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL_0RjE._"_T~-V_v

DATED THIS THE 22"" DAY OF N0vEMBER__:.§i_"0A:'   *- 

BEFORE   

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE S. ;4BLi_DL:'N21'ZE.E:I{   '

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST  N0'.'1.2'8£!/._20:I:6'§  
Between: u h ' :

Devaraj.

S/0 Kenchegowda,

Aged about 40 years," __ :  .  
APPenaha1_l_ivillagé,       

Yadiyuru Post,   __  "      .
Channarayapatha Tj._211'1;;_k.  »      Appellant.

(By Smt. ;x;R;' shlasaadafiga, My-.)  
1 K. M.i1'th4u:A'aiu,"~.  S  
No.6 1, 1\J"ewV'1'JQ: 1-.20/'7?5-Q4,
_}'j{{0VteL;.Kengé:'AL_V V
 ~._B"eh_i-nd KAantheshwara Complex,
' V. _, B:1r_1g:110r'é.«~..V

2" ~_  .__L1nit€d'_'I11(ii~;j'insurance Co. Ltd.,
'  Divisiofiafi Office,
N024, Ciassic Building,
 1" Eléor, Richmond Road,
" :,Bangalo1*e.  Respondents.

   Sr'E:Gangadhar Sangolli, Adv. for R2)



This MFA is filed under Section 173(.I.) of the 
Vehieies Act, 1988, against the judgment and award  
No.115/2007' dated 5.12.2009 on the file of Fast TI'E1C}('.A"C()LlIA'tiV'«':iv!f_:1i'('1"i  *

Add}. MACT at Channarayapatna, etc.

This MFA coming on for Ordefs  «day, '7tite_.: 

delivered the foliowing:

This appeal is directed again$t___ith:\g';.:_§_udgtnent  in
MVC No.1 15/2007 dated iifiikaioii'-..the Fast Track
Court and Add}.   was the
claimant before:_th;.    were the owner
and the insvo__ret'v  is no dispute as to
the occurrence  the liability of the second

respondent --u"Insiu:anee_ Conzpany to pay compensation. The

v4..vappel1ant;. has Vt'iled.t,his_¢.vappea1 seeking enhancement of

i'compensatio_n';~t  

 I..hav.e heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

If
it  



3. Learned Counsel for the appeliant would contend the':

appellant was an agricultutist eaming more than   V'

month. He had suffered 15% pennanent.:di*sabi.iity_4'  .YvtioI'e'¢. 

body. The Tribune} has not awarded attfncoinpensation 

loss of future income and towards«at'tendanAt"charges':'v_aIidWo'thei
incidental expenses. The award of oo-tngieiisation toxivards loss of
amenities and loss of income are on a
lower side. Learned" C_oun_se1    me through
the evidence of"'t§t_e_V  produced by the
appellant/cIaimar;'t'A'*'oeiiote also the impugned

judgment and award.  V' if " ~ VA

4.' 5gO:13_iA'ti1Ve otIie1*«Vhan«d, learned Counsel for the second

irespondent~Insutane'e -Company has sought to justify the impugned

 V judgzitenttand avttardi'

k

...

5. I have carefuliy considered the arguments of the learned

Counsel. made at the Bar and perused the materials placedi’oni~.t’

record.

6. The Doctor, who had treated the»..clai_tna.nt was ie>ia::ii’njed_

as P.W2. In his evidence, he haS’flSt£1te.d thatfitiie
suffered l5% permanent disability ‘wholei also
clear from the materials on….i:”record ?.:_ptilia{~~.t’t»i?!{7~plaimant is an
agriculturist. The accident Having
regard to vlhe case, it is just and
proper to hold ‘his day (%4,500/_ per month).

He was aged the of the accident. Therefore, the

multiplier applicable Thus, the claimant is entitled for a

ilsnrn Vofifl ,2.1v,50(}/eiitowards loss of future income. He is entitled for

a sun: of?I.0;U9Q./–:?t<)wards attendant charges and other incidentai

' expenses. award of ?l0,000/–« by the Tribunal towards loss of

I anienitiespis on a lower side. it is just and proper to award a sum of

under this head. He is entitled for ?9,()()(}/– towards

E

E
E

'-at

income during the iaid up period for two months.

ciaimant is entitled for the compensation as under:

SI.No.

Particulars

‘1 ‘ Arnozlrit’ ‘V

Towards loss of future earning capa’eity?_”i ” I

*ei,*2.1%,500.00 .

Towards pain and sufferings __

30000.00 ” =

Towards loss of amenities

V 0 20000.00

-{>-DJ}?-J.>-~v»

Towards loss of income duringdie laid ‘_

period V. 0- ‘

‘: $0 9,000.00

Towards medical expctiises 7 . v

? 00,000.00

GNU:

Towards attendant e£i2:i*ges;…3″a:1d__§” -.

incidezitai expenses

3 10,000.00

32, I 0, 5 00. 00

6. Vi’he’t’~i*z::}§:}t1ai’ guarded of ?66,000/– which has

00 be dedizeted frorh’«th«eV’iafo1?eseid amount and the balance of

compensation giayebiewto tiheieieitnant is 32,10,500/–. The said sum

0′ ef ?1;4%i;500!– shall ce.fry”interest at 6% per annum.

» I:i’«the_ir’es01t, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly

is

‘K

second respondent — Insurance company is
‘Vc¥ireeteti’§ie”v’.0ie§:}es’it a sum of ?’1,44,5002′– with interest at 6% per

“..§1I11Iiui1i._.fF(}1il the date of the appiieation till the date of deposit in

addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal within 3

of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of .

appellant is permitted to withdraw the a_meu_nt er;détteir/.deg5esi_t;.V

Registry is directed to return the records tie.’the_”‘Fribu’i1a] W

No costs.

BMM/–