IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAR'NATA}§}$;~..}§_g_£.A_.:': T ' BANGALORE ; DATED THIS THE 24?" .I_j.)A"\"'(.'I_vI:¥""'JUL*>E*v2-1"§?(.}, 81_v 1 B13F0IzF35;§ THE H()N'BLE MR. ;:§s'x'1CEL%AN%;u~:1§BYRAREDDY MISCELLANEOIf4__'SV_FIRS'i" ;S.PfE:3gL_ 653301: 2006 (MV) BETWEEN:___ 53],: % % H. Shamar}:na,_56 " ._ S/0 HanVi£II1éguwda' '~,W ' Resident Of?' * V' Ankapura Viiiuge V _ Kan-agya Hsbfi ' "'Has'sah'i'aluk..A ''''' APPELLANT Advocate) ' " H 'T ' = ., T_he.Nasli0nal Insurance: " ,CC:mmny Limited Hassa-:1, Represented By its Branch Manager ~ 2. AbduiNaset:r S10 Abdul Nasser Owner of Matador No. 205, Lashkzgg Mohalla, Holcnarsipum Town, Hassan 3. Lathiofi Driver S/o Mohamed Nasser Lakshminurasimha Swamy Temple 'Ffnlenarasipura Town Hassan flisifict '_ RESPQNDENTS (Shxi. S. V. Hcgdc R;-.s1:x)ndcnl No. 1 and Respondents Nos. 2 3 noticeidiapctxsod with) 1 This undor Section 173(1)or 11i:_~ilil1;1igili3s¢:il~:,z.=h:;;;§s i»°Lc't~w...;1#ainsl the: judgement and award MVC. No. 227597 on the E36 of the: _VAddii[io:_ial. Vlliioltioliiludgc, Member, Motor Accidonls ii T17ibonal~iiH,""Hossan, partly allowing the claim petition ii ~..for_ooorfipensai1oo_1and etc. 2 coming on for heating this day, the Court ii "(itv3lii'ili'v:jl"t'»(l the following- JUDGMENT
Heard the Cuunsei for the appellant. it it
the first respondent.
2. The appellant was injurett resiiit
and even after treatment,’: it from a
disability to the particular The appellant
having appr0aehe£§’A;’.tt}te Tribunal for
cumpensatioia a total sum of
it is this which is under
challenge –
3. The for the appellant would submit that the
wgrking as a Class-HI Civil Contractor and was
Rs.6,00Gi’–~ on an average per month. The
Tribiizzaliiiltaiirever has ignored the ineume and the percentage of
4, _ disaialityiiiin restricting the award tu Rs.25,00(}!-. The Tribunal
i has not awarded any amounts under the several eunventional
Z
«:4»:-
heads under which the appellant was entitled. The A’
has even been denied the medical expenditare in ”
treatment that he has received for the ;hijiz:’ies,_
accident and the injuries are net in disputegthe wastiot
justified in failing to address heads_ 6!.’ lender
which the appellant was aiidiitheretbre,
would seek award 9!’ uhdefthei..’yaiiuus heads.
4. The “‘itT;._st’: resipdeldeait wuuld vehemently
eppuseiditheiiapgieel eat that the appellant had
net prodtizzeci sitppmt efthe income claimed and
the produced, were of the year 2004
occurred in the year 1996. This, on
indicate that the appellant was making a
elzti:1i1.’v “tilt is this Gil”£.}ti’II1SL’:1I1Gt3 which has prompted the
{:3 award a limited amount cf compensation as the
~ sp1iellant’s bonafides were suspect. The elaim for enhancement
therefore is not wananted when the appellant has ” H
clean hands to the Court in seeking UL)H3p6fiSali§)’1.]___u’ V ‘
5. On these rival contentions and havitjig perused
it is to be seen that the accident’ ia._Ii”d….tl1e in§iiiies_ s’u£Ie§ed..b;« the r L’
appellant are not in dispute: The that the
appellant had produced pertain to the
period dining he has taken a
harsh View «Jr the appellant to the
Notwithstanding
the factiiiiithgiiu me’ jimduced hills which did not
pertain -to oli accident, the appellant was certainly
compensation under the conventional heads which i
A appellant was suilering from a disability
ol’a”perman’eiit nature which was at l4%. If the same
i into account, the appellant was entitled to
— towards disability. For want of better method,
multiplier method may be adapted in computing the
3
compensation payable under this head. Insulin as
the appellant is concerned, tho appellant has _
to indicatt: that he was in fact a C:of;’iif21lctof'[_’
was a Cl.a.s’s-III Civil Contracttm it cciagélot be lllhdgt lit:
would have earned an average li*a<_:lo1:1§: of if not
Rs.6,000:'- as claimed _if._ iiacorlric is adopted, the
appellant would of Rls.26,88G;'-
lowamds ll” 3 l: V
6. Further ofincomc during the period oi’
trcatmcnl ilSo«–co1;cci*ncd;._ thr:fTdbunal has not chosen to award
v _5if1y_’:L§’i3m(;1L_l1l:rt1.uM_ As ‘Attic-aggscllanl had suffered a fracturc, it is safe
would have been under treatment and
vitfzlrlrlfiiiiiliscd for allcast three months. Hence, ihc
“r~w._l__’»apmIla1;t__A+:vould be entitled to allcast Rs.l2,000l- towards loss
income during the period of lrcaiment. The appellant is
entitled to the same. The appellant would have also
incurred medical cxpenditurc for the trcatmcnt. In the absence
g
of relevant bilis, the appellant can be awarded a nt)m.ina3.:.t.su;:2
which in the upiniuzz of the Court is about
appellant is tllcrcfurc entitled to a total ” ~ ..
ui’Rs.43,880;’- with interest at 6% anmzyié ‘cit-‘.¢,_-.
award.
IIV