(BY. SR: SACHINS. IVIAOADUM , ADV. FOR RI,
IN THE TSOH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-EARWAD _
DATED THIS THE 213: DAY OE JANUARY, 2010.
BEFORE _. ' '' jv
THE HONELE MR. JUSTICE V. JAOANNATH.AN1.A.I.:'~
MISCELLANEOUS EIRST ARREA-,:;NO..2 187/ 20'0C'TI.:TyIV} V ..
BETWEEN:
GANAPATH, S/O LAXMAN DAHINDE'~.._
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: PRIEST IN
MAHALAXMI TEMPLE, GADAO
R /O BAGALKOT, TQ. BAGALKQT,
DIST. BAGALKOT. .0 _ I I
'-_=.,...*A.PPEELAN'T
{BY SRT. SHIVAKUAMR S. BADAwA.DAOI,._ADV.) ~ "
AND:
2. NAGARAJ, / O --P«'E'AI,LIIIIAR.}U'N CHONNAD,
AGED AEOI'UT..47'IjYEAR7S;'--0CC;"EUSINESS
R/O H.T«r'O. 3922',£UiTTAR.OALI;CHIKI<ODI
TO. CHIKKODI, DIST. .'EELCAU1VI;"' ~ '
2. THE DIVISIOINAL'MA'NAOER--,._
NEW INDIA ASSURANC-E CO. LTD.,
TURPAD»RUNOLO»w, OPP. KITTEL
COLLi3GE,OA'DHARWA'D,V _
'- " ~ " """ " ...RESRONDENTS
SR1 O..N.RAICHUR; ADV. FOR R2.)
'g"'--.I'THIS--'.AjRREAL IS EILED UNDER SECTION T.73(T) OF' MV ACT
AGAINST TH}_E}--J'UDGMEI\ET AND AARD DATED 30.5.2006 PASSED IN
MVC 'NO.328/2005 ON THE EILE OE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN)
"SAND CJMAI'-/IEMBER MACTHIII, BAGALKOT, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OE COMPENSATION WITH 12% INTEREST.
"THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE EOLLOWINO:
Ed
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties in re;s’p’ect~
appeal preferred by the claimant for of
compensation.
2. Appellant Counselm’ Sri. S.
Badawadagi submits not dispute so
also the liability of the so far as the
quantum iS failed to award
compensation ‘fultlureozearning capacity though
medical'”e’Videij:ce.i:l:l?%§;;is \ thel._””d’islability between 5ow55%
following’ the fracture contusion of ribs,
fracture of pelvis Var:._d as per the medical evidence there was
” 2 also” on side of the hip and the left shoulder
“none-..as.__lWeil. as the left ribs and pelvic bones have not
properly despite treatment taken at various hospitals.
j Therefore; learned counsel has sought for enhancement of
ll_j’cornp.ensation under the head of future earning capacity and
— towards pain and suffering and medical expenses also. In
“this regard, the evidence of PW~l and the document
X’,
produced, in particular, EXP-32 was referred to, to contend
that the appellant was Working as a priest in
Temple, Gadag and was getting Rs.3,000/ — per ~
3. On the other hand, ‘tlearnedi co.unseI iifoi:’ri–._tl?:.e:
insurance company argued though thei’iappevllant.3 has –. L’
produced E3x.P~3f2, author of documentiiwas not
examined before the ‘i..mi~§o’;¢r, there is no
evidence to showthat injury, the
appellant priest. As such,
compensation calilioriienihaijicement.
4. ” Takinginote”‘—Qi”‘the above submission and the
evidenceggonireeordt hand’ appellant having produced EX.P–
V’and3-having denied in the cross–examination that he is
priest, the document produced at EX.P–32
also..44indiVcati’ngii that the appellant was working as a priest
V’-earlier,” tmy view, the income could have been taken atleast
i”iat.R_si§’;3,000/– per month and disability at 15% for the whole
body and consequently under the head of loss of future
%
.,;
earning capacity, the appellant will be entitled to
Rs.59,400/–. Since the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1viV–3,’~lf,:):(ll)’£)./s,
the net increase will be Rs.-44,400/– under
Towards pain and suffering, a further sum of this
awarded in View of the number of fractures*and”towaiids’
medical expenses, in the lightof the docurnefitts”revealing
that the appellant took treatniieint» at variouolhl-ihoaioitals, a
further sum of Rs.1O,Ot)0/M the
amount towards convej/lazielell f__:’_.g:1.:’atIvAAlfyx.stewards loss of
amenities – Thus, the
compensatisjn by Rs.’70,400/ -. The
amount will _ear:%y _ir1t.erest”alt 6%;
, Appeal *is.,al’1ovlVedi-in Tpart thus.
T’ ‘1″ “r.”*’;”- )1 6
gagflfi
K…»-‘ 41,;
— kmv 44″