IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG} U.,ORE
DATED THIS THE Gm DAY OF NOVEMB.¥iRy:
PRESENT :'V n J
THE HONBLE 3
AND", A'
THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1c--; B.sREEN1VAs;: "G0'wDA"
M.F.A.__ No. 3A1-9?..3;g_.f" 2002 wvc}
}wl?A.N0.3197j3I99EuMil959bf2002("K3
Between: W = " '
fhmunappaai ;.H% .'%', a «
S/0. Somhsh_séi<;afapp£{;'--f'.'jx
Aged a_b_Qut'~..35 " «.
Kattihaln", "C.h':it1'ac'iLi1°gé1;«~.,I %
N ow fesidiilg at 'Aiuiad '
III Main, III. Cr'0Vss,._jj.
DaVanagE:'r_e;' _ V' ' "
Appellant in
* ______ H MFA NO. 3198/2002
' .'_Fh'im"m-.app'a., -
V' .S /0, Kampalappa,
L._.Aged aI:'7'm1t, Sflvyears,
Kattihaili,-- 'Ch'i=tradL1rga Dist,
v New Re_sidi1f1'g
; Nittiv:1l1i,II Cross,
"' " . 2 "'»Davanagére.
A Appellant in
MFA NO. 3197/2002
k/.
L. Sreekantha Rao, Adv. for R2,
2
Devendrappa,
S/0. Thimmajja alias Thippayya,
Aged about 38 years,
Kasavanahalli,
Beramasagara,
Chitradurga District. '"AppelIant"'in
' fjMFA.No. 31'9'92':2o02 1'
Rangaswamy,
S/0. Gadarappa.
Aged about 25 years,
Kattihalli, Chitradurga, V. . _
Now residings K. B. 'E)ft--ensi0rL V. "
Davanagere.
&"".vv,';'AppelIant in
_ A No. 1959/2002
[By Sri. s. Naga{rajVa,.VAdxf_.)' a
And:
1. K. S._Raj.appa, AV -- .
S;/0". M'. _Sid.dabasappa,
Own er, of the"'T1eac"tQr',
No. KA~ 15 M_--6A?9'--'6'8O.
; 'Katttihafli, Siddapura,
":'«:.CEhitradurga' "raiuk,
Dis LriC't.._
Thve°'B,ra':1'ch Manager,
A V "%Un_1'i;ed{II'1dia Insurance Co. Ltd.,
P. »B. 'N675, Dummi Complex,
Laksshmi Bazaar, Chitradurga.
':.-3 '
. Respondents
(Common)
K R. 1 Served)
2. The case of the ctlaimants are that t,hey.~’–were all
workers working under one K.S. Rajappa,léjsoriflofpM.
Siddabasappa, owner of tra.ctor–tr21ilor beai’=i._1_ig.
No. KA–16-M-679/680. “i’hey”‘yvereA_ of
Rs.150/- and batta of Rs.50/~ lytao:1rl2o’§ol5;:>;0oi
when they were workirlglaslr:.V:VVcoolies’—jh’the tractor-
trailor at about 4.30′: Hrhet with an
accident on because of the
rash and V1l’t’he._…tractor–trailor by its
driver. Alli’ sustvaihed injuries. They were
Hospital, Chitradurga
and thereaftertaken treatment in a private
hospital at4″£):ava.z”1gere.lT. The injuries sustained by them
‘ V”-v.,,§evg\3,rl.te=ti’A ir1A._theirHuple&r1nanent disability, they have spent
r—.h’a_cgel’aff1VQunt-towards medical treatment, police have also
reg–i1stered.Vl’.3a case, therefore they have sought. for
” ” ‘A V”‘::ornper:sation. ‘
3. After service of notice the owner of the vehicle
entered appearance. admitted the accident and the injury
sustained by the claimams. He cor1tiended._i:’that he
obtained a Valid insurance poiicy in respectof _)A[‘1VV”1{“.’2:”‘\”€iI”ii,.C1’3f”,’
involved in the accident and;»rrtherefore Vthde i:1.s];;;r:..n¢er. ‘
company is liable to pay the cori1pe:nsaVtioCn,_yThe
Company also filed a detaidiedwritteri.sta_t¢me1?it”contesting
the claim.
4. The Commissioner r_ci{ubb’eci1;r ._”all_ the 4 cases.
conducted a «._the claimants were
exaniined.’ have also examined the doctor
Who treated have produced 18 documents
Ex. P 1 to P 18. On behalf of the
” no evidence was adduced. However by
xiparties the insurance policy was marked as
Commissioner on appreciation of the aforesaid
A oifahand documentary evidence on record has held that
C Rangaswamy ciaimant in Ciairn Petition No.74/2001
and Sri Dyamappa claimant in Claim Petition No;
76/ 2001 had sustained simple injuries and he
awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/~ to each of
other two claimants are concerned
claimant in Claim Petition
a sum of Rs.1,60,227/-
Claim Petition N’o.,_77/ ‘Chaps flAbe’en’vE awarded
Rs.97.357/-. the claimants
ha”? PT€f€Y1″c’Ci:.£VVpthes:eAVVl enhancement of
compensatiorifi _ C” it C”
5. appearing for the appellants
assailingihe Commissioner contended that
thefieiinoiint by the Commissioner is on the lower
‘ side, he’hasC”11ot. properly appreciated the medical evidence
‘recordf; has also not taken in to consideration the
evidleneeh the claimants that they were earning more
‘A Rs.4,000/a pm. and their income has taken at
l5~p?cs.2,OOO/– p.m. only which is also on the lower side and
\A/
therefore he submits a case is made for enhancement of
compensation.
6. Per contra, Sri L. Sreekanta Rao, 1earne;i.V..C«oVU–nse1
appearing for the 2nd respondent Insurance:
submits that in the absence voferiany
havirlg regard to the fact that:b’:’a117′.A_’the
agricultural cookies, the istvof the
Commissioner was jus_tified””iniVc_:’: ttakfiingtgit’theirv’:§income at
Rs.2.000/– p.1n. As the; have sustained
Rs.4,000/»« to each of them and
the taro’ are concerned they have
sustained and on the medical evidence and the
-v_is~st,1ed by the doctor, applying the relevant
awarded just. and proper compensation
V and no” case for enhancement is made out.
We have gone through the award and other
‘–..na-aierieiis on record. We are satisfied that. the injuries
sustained by Sri Rangaswamy and Sri Dyamappa are
simple in nature and they were agricultural :__It is
not possible to accept their evidence
earning Rs. 150/ — per day as wageshand
batta and therefore compensation .
that basis. Having regard’to”‘t__he
attendant circumstances after looking
into the legal in holding the
injuries sustair1K§’d_’by:’thVe’ ‘ are simple
in nature to each of them is
just and’pi;§;Jer:;:::fi.§V”Inf*lspo-lfar””‘as’;other two ciaimants are
concerned fracture and admitted to
hospital acceptiiigthe evidence of the doctor, applying
it the Commissioner has awarded
is legitimately due to them. Hence we
any justification to enhance such
compensation, as what is awarded by the Commissioner is
-.lja.sed on legal and medical evidence. We do not see any
9
merit in any of these appeals. Hence we pass the
following:
0 R D E R
All the 4 appeals are Order-
JUDGE
Vb/-