IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, BANGALORE': "
DATED mxs THE 27'" DAY or Mav,~2oo8_@ " f ; %
BEFOIE A _ % I
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AS?ޤi(..B. HINcf:1Ge'R1
Bl-3TW%
Sri Dinesh Kumar _ '
aged about 37 years _ V
S/o Povaiah i 1 . V V
Residing at Gun1naga;" V .. .
Mary Hill ' _ --::_
Mangalore _ .... ' "
..Appeflant
~. lb'! Sn'. *§|"ridhatt_fi;..Advocate]
AND
1.
Sr: Divakarg’ ‘V
Ad’?-ii, aboiIt«:.22._tV¢3$|’$ ———-
S/_o Shivai3atha” ‘
Resident’ Of Mary ‘ Hill
Manoalore ‘
he Unitedindhw Co. Ltd.
Bridge Road. Batman-.a
-Mangalone 5;-5 em
4: by Branch Manager Res eats
T _ ‘ thy sn 5. Krishna Kishore, Advocate for R2]
” Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated
“.?.2V.”‘:9.20G4 passed Ill MVC N0.205 Of 2002 on the me Of U18 HI Addl.
District Judge and Member MACT-IV, Dakshlna Kannada, Mangalore
partiy aliowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking
enhancement of compensation.
disability at 30% in relation to the iimbiand states
appellant has difficulty in walking, cllmbing,msouattih”g”‘
heavy objects. He further states that there ishardlyhl
of ankle movements with extensive anckerino of sl<inean.dVylossV
of bone. For the trauma that the appel:la:nt__ha:s in the
wake of suffering these injuriesKFand«.V: {find that the
awarding of Rs.35,Ooe/_-V only)
towards pain and award a further
sum of Rs.2o,ooo/9
8. was a mason In the City
of Mangalone, it take his dally income to be
Rs,_1*2.Q/_- ovnexh”u’nd.redv twenty only). Further, the loss of
futureea.rn:–ngvcanr:ot’ be assessed based only on the medical
3′:”e:y_l,dence; .’l’l:e profisslon or avocatlon of the injured person has
_ htoube taken’ linto account. For instance, while the lmpainrnent
of:thejljllrri’b”«wonld affect the life-stvle of a teacher or a legal
adversely, it may not throw them out of
altogether. on the other hand, the serlous
.V.”»*lrnpalrmeat of a limb may totally throw the driver out of his
employment. In the instant case, I am concerned wlth the
KZEM
effect of the physical disability upon the reason. the it ‘=
doctor has deposed that the physical disaioility relation ‘to’
limb Is 30% and in relation to the.»w-hole body is l
12%, the Tribunal has taken it to be may
still be continuing to do hisvtnasonlry but yvith his
reduced efficiency and, a fallwlnjis. the civil
construction market: ‘of the matter, I
deem it necessary at 20%.
9. Takan;; his R’s.a,soo/- (Rupees three
thousand six hundred the loss of past income
towards theygjaid-_up to Rs.21,600/– (Rupees twenty
Sirnilariy taking his income to
;_._be RS:’:3¥6V((jQ(‘I;fi’ and age as 34 years and employing the
tvreltevant rn’ultlpl_§e:’-oft 15, the amounts awardable towards the
it .futur.e”~eaminas on account of disability, come to
[Rs.3,soo/– (income permonth) x 12 (months) x
;(tr:u»!t:;§3lier) x 20/100 (disability percentage)]. The Tribunal
‘avrarded Rs.10,600/- towards future medical expenses. The
doctor’s evidence drops enough Indication that the appdlant
QEH-
institution of the claim petition till the date of pa}*md§1t§:’A~~::Thed»”
order.
12. This appeal is allowed In port::’*vNo”orde.f ‘asvto
Inn
office is directed to draw up the modified ;:a!wafd’A.Ifn”teffr§s–:of,1’