1
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUTF BENCH AT GULBARGA
{DATED was THE 25"' mm or JULY 2003 .' f
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. GEEPAK VERMA, Acmc; or-mi _ J T
AND
HON'BLE MR. .:us1'%c:E N;K..§>ATIL A
M.F.A.NO. 1177 oFé5a5 (Mv 1%]
BETWEEN:
GIREPPA 3:0 NAGWDRAPPA
HANCHINAL '
AG&:43YEAR::; _
0CC:GOVT.;SE¥?;'iANT
R:oPLoT.Mo.12i';j ~ _
15"A99L=i. LA=.re«uT' > '- '
N305 comm: V
GULBfitRGA"-.
APPELLANT
(BY sm ASHOK s. "KwEsa ,' Aavccknzéj
mu. _
' zamasm SAB SHAIKH
M55: MAJQR'0G{;:V.L~)RlVER
~:;:u..asMAiLs:«B RAZAQSAB
aazsnmuxn' ~ ._ =
DIST; OSMNAEAB MAHARASTRA
'WAKATH S10 KHASMALI
' AGE:aMAJOR occ: aunswess
V Riv?) «ALAND: DIST: GULBARGA
- ~ mm AT KQKETA NAGAR
-- _ __LAHUR mst LA'fUR- MAHARASTRA
THE DIV!S!{)NAL MANAGER
NEW INDIA MSURANCE CGMPANY JLTD
"39
the appeilant by Additional
Np.427uI2E}G4A'.défc:ided on 10.12.2004, claimantis before
*&2.i§ appeal med under Section 173 of me Motor
obviousiy for enhancement.
"{HROUGH ITS MANAGER
SANGAMESHWAR COLONY
GULBARGA
aEPsoNt:>enrr:~:,_ _
(NONE APPEARS FOR R-1 AND 2
BY SR!.R.V. NADAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
fit!
mus MFA as FILES UNDER sacrum 133(1) 'king? 4M;v;-5c'~:;, 7
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT mo AWARD DATED 20.1 22904 Pgssemn wc;' = .
NO.427f2004 on "me mus or "me av ADDL. oasrascr JUDGE. Ana w:.c'r;
JV GULBARGA. = V = _
ms MFA comma on FOR THIS 'BAG'; 'Acrirgc ewes
JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLl__.OWlNG: _.._. _ '
Sri. Ashglfl None for
respondenttz-H' Nadagouda for
rwpondanjf heard on
merits. j
2.3% with the amount or
Tribunai, Guibarga in M.V. Case
3
3. At fine time of me accident appellant was aged
about 48 years and was working as First Divisional
Assistant in the Office of the D.T.O. G-u!barga;;”~–._C)n
26.11.1989 at about 6.00 PM. he was t1’availing«..i§t
bearing ragistration No.KA-32-MI649
family function. When the said
the main road, a Maxi cab .bearinQ
24-8644 came from J_ and
negligent manner and” the jeep. On
account of the ‘said aocsd; W fned bodiiy
injuries and {gas and he was
required to Ciinic at Hyderabad
and sands 9f;om the
Raéaav Dutt and Dr. T.M.Nataraj
} ormétweascs
_V 4. of the accident, flue said maxicab
rmpondent N02 and driven by respoment
“‘ ‘_N9_’.’17 ‘insured with rmmndent No.3. Appeliant was
“W
4
required to take treatment for aimed 4 ‘.4 months at
different places in different hospitals.
5. it is not in dispute before us that, _
has been performing his duties;
Divisionai Assistant, even tiwougnkit ties: ‘
that he finds it difficuit, as
effectively and effioientiy, to “do… before the
6. Consideiing and featurw
of the ” awarded a sum of
to 3 jointly and
severaliy at the rate of 6% from the
date; of the .”petition tili realisation. Hence, this
counsei appearirg for appellant
V ; sb’enuzoue|y”.V’contended before us that (i) the amount
Lcswerzri’
it ‘V V’ iewierded is on wbr side and deserves to be enhanced;
‘ A(ii)ecuJai amount spent on medical biiis, even though
it “established by the appeiiant has not been awarded; (iii)
E
5
for future treatment which he has to undergo, a meager
sum has been awarded. Therefore, it was contendve;d.:.:thet
amount of compensation is on lower side and _
be enhanced.
8. On the other hand, lea:rne¢:3.o9*:Lu1′:1se!’
Nadagouda submitted that ‘thvete beeh.i,;_an.y..
of income to the appellant as sleet salary
for 4 ‘/5 monflts when he and just,
proper and edeqoete which calls
for no
9. L¢os§éegi disability certificate
issued established that on the
lower fiert the _body.;” pennanent disability is to due
iemeoir eimost The evidence of Doctor further
they be required to undergo one more
M iv .Voperetior§:for””‘removai of his plate and screw which were
H K unification of the bone. Apart from fine above,
to be seen that, for pain and suffering sufficient
. V ilerhount has to be awarded. QED
6
10. A fact nnot be ignored that in case of
permanent disability, the claimant has to suffer14the.._:san3e
throughout his life. As a natural oonsequeno5e;V«:tttefei’tj’ot;
normal working would automafioatslyggt ‘ ;
same will be slow.
11. Keeping all these and ‘Visor, we
are of the opinion ewatded on lower
side and deserves to” to us, a
total amount
meet the ends of
justice. take care of the
hasflto undergo, E amount of
been denied, the enhanced
and suffering and other heads.
» ;Th.ug_..vA_ttsev’«att1ount awarded is modified. Appellant is held
in all a sum of Rs.3,00,000l- (Rupees
Thl-ee ~a_akr:s only) from the respondents jointly and
A “ll Vsetferally. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at me
‘ ___5rate of 6% from the date of application till it is actually
“E
paid.
7
12. The observations made by Claims Tribun__al
with regard to the prosecution of appeilant and
Medina! Stores is hereby set aside.
13. Lacking to the facm and featums ‘
parties to bear their own costs. V
% %[Aj¢%ting.’% Chief Justica
Sd/~.
ts”: ….