MFA f\%o.9118 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATEE) THES THE 25:" DAY 09' NovEMBf~3R--<'2VooQjéi'
BEFORE "CU:j;CC"w1C
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'Iv'-ICEB.S'_;P1§'fiié4_ 4% «
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL' No_'.'9A._'¥'12$'/'.éGf§;§W[§jijr;}..V'C'
BETWEEN :
Ebevendra, S/o Appasaheb
Jamakhandi @ Misi, v '
Aged about 24 years, C' C . ,
Occ: Coolie in Sugar Factory,
(Now Nil), R/o 1x11aha11r1g;5u;=,; C' j C
Talr Mudhol, {\Ioi%z.o.at Kanab'argi',
Ta1& Dist:§.Boiga¥-,1n:u. " ...APPE'.LLANT
(By Sri, S . /3fi.d'vvoce{Vte)
A N D V C
1. Irappa Laxnoxan ~Kiitiii',.
agoci I§1aj0r,"»Q_CC: Btsiness,
(_S.P_.M.],
«.Bé1aga]i Cross Road, Mahalingpur,
V _l\2i--1.,_1C'c1.h"o1T,V District: Bagalkot,
._ '{G_:xrr1ef'*of Spiénder Motor Cycle
A 1\Io.KA%o£ZV9o/L--4-- 1 90)
Orieotal Insurance Company Ltd.,
AA Through its Divisional Officer,
C V.S1'i";mbag Chambers, Kirloskar Road,
7.VBe'Egaum--59OOO2. WRESPONDENTS
C Sri C.S.Be2’1ni, Advocate for R2)
MFA N09118 of 2006
$0
This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act again.s_t’~,_t’he
judgment and award dated 20.04.2006 passed._4ln..’iR/ITJCV.
No.l3E34/2004 on the file of the 11 Additional_–‘C3ixrilxI;t1dge_T’
(Sr.Dn.) and Additional MACT Belgaum, partly ‘a_llowirig» K 0
the claim petition for compe_n.sation_” ancff s”eel<.ing 0'
enhancement of compensation with 8%~in«teries.t:.'~_V«._
This miscellaneous Vfirst appeatl cornintig ion':
admission this day, the Court delivered the folIo'w§ng': '
This appeal is lnjured~claimant
seeking enha'n_'ctei:1'e.n.t otf–«–corr_1pxen.sati'on.
In an 'occurred on 09.04.2004, the
claimant"s1,istainedxserious personal injuries due to the
ras:h3,ari'd nezncigli-ger_i_t_'Ar.iriving of the motor cycle by its
–.v4_.s.sa4..revsult of the accident, the claimant suffered.
£i~;1¢ulr”e’ of-j’rn=iVddle 1 /3rd of tibia and fibula of the right
leg iandiifracture at the junction of middle ll/314 of the
and fibula of the left leg. He was treated at Sai
MFA NO.9l18 of 2006
Hospital Mudhol. He was an inpatient for a period of 30
days. He filed claim petition seeking compensatio:o..__.__”
3. The claimant examined himself as
doctor as P.W.3. The claimant deposedf
Tribunal that he was working asiia”iab_o’iureri 9
Sugar Factory and was getting
Rs.-4,000/– out of which
The Tribunal has taken aiineotrie of the
claimant at RS2, have earned
only Rs.’70/ suffered, the
doctorghas ygtt:.at’v~–beciause of the injury suffered,
the claimant yvwiasiiiiiioitriiiinla position to walk for a long
dis.tance andbould not stand for a longer duration as
both thve«.ylegisvoould not bear the Weight. It is also stated
‘theiiduot:-toriiithat the claimant could not do any hard
Worls, ‘l’he.i4;oermanent disability is assessed by the doctor
if at’ii’3._5″/ed in respect of the right lower limb and 45% in
respect of the left lower limb. The Tribunal has taken the
MFA 510.9318 of 2996
permanent disability at 25% and has awarded
compensation under different heads as under: i’
1) Medical treatment _ 4_
2) Pain and sufferings
3) Loss of amenities, comfort
happiness, enjoyment of life etc,_ A’
-4) Loss of future income
disability
i l 1 ,V65″,”400/–
The Tribunal hjas_ap;pii’ecdJ;1q’§.;n;iitipi.j.;§r of 18 having
clue regard”tic;the’:V~_V_age_V~.o:f«the ‘injured found to be 22
counsel for the parties
and pe1’usecl. ‘tl’}’E: VI’.f;atc:_icia;Eis on I’€CO}:”d.
my”consi’dered view, the Tribunal was in
l_i_ei”1fTo”r-‘i. the monthly income of the injured
l:§s.2,lOO/–. The evidence of the claimant
aclearly discloses that he was working as a labourer in
“Vithe_.js’ugar factory and earning Rs/1,000/– per month.
MFA No.9118 of 2006
The injured was a young, halo and healthy person aged
22 years at the time of the accident. The accideht”‘*«ha.s
occurred on 09.04.2004. Keeping in mind the” 0′
duties he was discharging as a~il’a’L’soure-_r Vllsugaig
factory, no documentary evidence “could “be’~ex.p’ecteVd’~._
regarding the wages paid. have
made a realistic and” ~..§eas.o’n’ah.l§3flas_sessrh’e11’t'”lEin this
regard. Having due on record, in
my view, the the income of
the injured.’ Insofar as the
permainerit”‘diigfggaldility’concerned, the Tribunal has
assessed the the medical evidence and
there-Cannot iriterference by this Court. Even
0V.°’a_gainst»–.’the._headvsmlriain and sufferings’ and ‘loss of
Vii–aVr£i_en.iti.es_.’.”rzo~.iVnterference is called for as the Tribunal
has~..__award,efelila sum of Rs.25,000/~ each. However, no
“‘amoun’t…’is awarded towards ‘food, nourishment and
miscellaneous expenses’. Keeping in view, the nature of
irijuries and the period of treatment, l find it reasonable
MFA N0.9}.i8 of 2006
to award a sum of Rs.ES,OOO/» under this head_.__ No
amount is also awarded for the loss of income:
the laid up period. The claimant must V’
to keep out of work for a period o-f”tl’1i:.ee
a sum of Rs.9,000/~ deserves toliilbee
head. If the amount is calei;LiVl’atedAhxtaljqhingthe it
above mentioned factors,’ th€t’ooliipei1As_atioAn’to which the
claimant is entitled to ‘heads can be
worked out as ‘U.nd–er:
1) Medicali’e§<1i;eriseis–. i Rs. 2,000 /»
2) pail’?!’E{l’1diT$”ili’félti.figS”it’ it Rs. 25,000 /–
3) LosaS_Aof«.arneni’Liesi ‘ i Rs. 25,000/~
)
3
4 Food 4′ Rs. 5,000/~
5 Loss of fiitt_ire.inco’me”.. Rs.1,62,000/~
” _ 6) of incorne ‘du«I’ing the
A *.18.id_L1.p period Rs. 9,000/W
Total Rs.2,28,000/»
in all; ,t_lie claimant is entitled to total compensation of
i””_RS»lé’;28,000/~. The claimant is entitled for interest on
</
aw. —
1
M?A N<}.9§.§.8 G? 2006
the enhanced amount at 6% per annum from the date of
petition til} realisation.
Appeal is accordingly allowed to the V’
Parties to bear their respec\ti\}e”c9$t’e. _ V
16963
Kms*