High Court Karnataka High Court

H S Shivanna vs The United India Insurance Co Ltd on 19 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
H S Shivanna vs The United India Insurance Co Ltd on 19 November, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
..;...

IN 'me HIGH com? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE':.:.:""'._V

DATED THIS THE 19*" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2093 I  ' %

BEFORE

"nee Hc;>:s:'aLE MR. susmze sv{3£§iAs%afTa;«%JAz3: j 

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APs>EA;%LNo.55 65? £998 (Mv)
gmgaw: V  *  

HA5. SHIVANNA V
5/43 LATE SHIVALENGAIAH' _
AGED ABOUT 31 YEAR5 '  --
RESEDENG AT r~:o,773  
4"?" cams, 4?" MAEN  V
VIJAYANANDANAGAR.  
NANDINI t..AYQLF!."._ _ V _ -1;, 
BANGALORE  559 eT95 _ 

_ V A    APPELLANT
(av SRI:'RA3}1.NN}€\;V.3§£3%¥CC}&"EE§»§' 
AND'  _ . _ 

  TE-4%: UN;;3'fED.1£\£DIA INSERANCE
1 'COMPANY LIMIIED
 ' N0.-355v_{72, E9" Mi-KEN RQAD
'  113?. amcxac, m3.3:s.3I.NA:;ARA

'?«:'-'xi'«:'§3»'&LGRE-r- E68 016
REERESENTEQ BY ITS MANAGER

  :<.s.'3A*}ENi:RA

  As/4:3 KMBYANNA, MAJOR
., RILSIDING AT NQ125
= _ 13?" "mass, 13* 'K' BLOCK
'2RA3.»x.nNAeAR, BANGALORE -- 55:: em
:  RESPONDENTS

V “(av SR1: v.r<. SESHAGIRI RAG, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
was MISCELLANEOUS ms? APPEAL IS FI1..ED U/S 173(1) as Mv

, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD UATED {)1.{}8.2007 PASSED

IN MVC NO.523}'2{}O7 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER-, MACT, IV AQBITIONAL

-3.._

3, P.W,2 is the Doctor and is his evidence he has stated

that the ciaimant was treated as in–patient for 10 days

has suffered 18°/’o disabiiity. The ciaémant in his evidéh’c<é.t'_i§.a:s1.

statad that he is working as Cashier in Bata it

However the Tribunal has disbeiieved this Sfitfigi, éind'7ta»i§e'n.V

income of the ciaimant at Rs.3.000{«~ gnd drgrited <:oVrri.r:sr:s£*ztit;:rt."vt V

as under:

Pain and 5ufig.r§nds~. r§s;’;~2’s.,():io;$~i”i
Medicai Ex;:’ér;isesi”-~* i i2’s;:.;r2t[,3ttar,2s:/«

Loss of”;€5sr*;~..e:h’i;f.Vies’iirz~’– ”

Life    _i?s.25,G00/-

Loss of'  
Treatments.pdri,od ._  "  Rs.1,000/~

Lossidf ifutureinincdtrwg – Rs.57,600/-

._ai!._’thg.,VV’i”‘T:ibunal has awarded compensation of

4. Laaringdvsounsei for the appeilant submitted that P.W.1

i’iiisAAesii’d.«;encV:se has stated that he is working as Cashier in Bata

_}’e3c§-iaiiiitirrwited. He also submitted that he had produced NC ID

Ex.P.11 and further submits that the evidence. of the

didimant -~ P.W.1 has not been considered by the Triiazsnai. He

-5-

be taken as the reasonable income of the claimant. The

‘fribunai has accepted the medical bills for morefi…V:{h;nn.V_

Rs.i,38,G€}G/-. I am of the opinion that the ciaimant__i;$””entiti.§_é _

for enhancement of compensation as under:

?. The claimant is entitled for Rs,:’96,(§OiUf~ fcwiarcivs

of future income’, Rs.4€),000/- t<§n_v_§*r:dVs 'i5a"in a.n_;ii":S_nffer§»ng§.',

Rs.1.38.251/- tcwards 'medicai expe;§:§:$n'_.'vvE§s.1§;GQi).{- Vtvrfjawarcis

'Loss of income dur_i'nfi'}:§ie ia;i_d~uLp*' 'iRs…'25,0G0/~ towards
'Loss of Amenitiiéjs' V. 'Conveyance and
nourishmanifiicnarfigas'. uifigw tiié'V"cinimant is entitleé for

ns.3,24,2512» with '6¢/Vciin'§:afesi§;'– j %
* * Sd/~
Judge

VKM