High Court Karnataka High Court

Kumar Jatteppa S/O Yamanappa … vs B S Birdar on 3 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Kumar Jatteppa S/O Yamanappa … vs B S Birdar on 3 June, 2008
Author: Manjula Chellur K.N.Keshavanarayana
 é g1:;A:*?UR,._;"  RESPONDE2'~¢"FS

' " " {By -ségi;  RJNNAPPA, A}1)\:'. FOR R2.)

 ALNTE) AWARD DATED: 6£()7f'20i)S PASSED IN MUG

  3 » . _ _ME}../SEWER, MAC'1'-VI, BIJAPUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAN
  ,;2Ef!3I"1*1c:".z~e FOR COMPENSATION 3; SEEKING ENFIANCEMENT 02:2
 GGMPENSAKQN.

1

 TFLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 9;: BANGALORE. j f  _
DATED 1:29.313 THEE; 33" my OF .T{§E*€E 2503   > I

PRESENT:  _

TEE HOWBLE MRs..It:sTI(::e. MAré=§i$L3~ ?3.I%{§;LI;iéF;"- "   V
AND    -. ~.  

rm Hozxrmg 3»-;m.JUS"ITCE Kg.1§EsHsxx:g;NARA*:*;ai;s.53 

;'v1.F.A.3{x?O. 35?; 2023::;, (:~;:;€x%) V
EETEEEN: ' Vmfl'   R
KU:¥iAR EATTEPPA  Vv
3:0 YAEVIANAPFA    . 
5\G}:E,:14YEARS3OCC:_{3G'Q{;}E I    5
we RAMBA, TALUQ; ::$e'D;g~TTr>1sI*R1cT;_Bug;:3u9.' 
MINOR BY'GUARD1A3-§ _arA:Vi;mAP;3.5."~~.    
sro NEsL%RAPPAHA1§HA3~;;:V '   ._  APPELLAN"I'
(B}'SZ\«f1".PADE:+§§A s."t3*:~i'm:g, _ --

ANI) :

1 B.S.BIRADAR'"' _  V. *
_ AGE,,:4jéa:1A;oR, {f)CC:.,BUSB\EESS
 v.'1vRf0,_IB.MfiMROZA  ..... 
 Brmpnm  

('Q

A  1=~é§x2<EAGER
THE €)RJENTAE_,-- .I'NS{3'RANCE '}ii'{7'§,v{'_'
With these contentions, the appeiiant sought fm' $0-tal   
Rs.6,00,000;'-.     Mk

4. The owner ofthe Kerry was itnpleadéfi   ._
remained exparie. The insurer of the    as " '

respondent No.2 and contested the pafitien.-.  ;%f'£¥cr. _asses'si11gA  oral and

documentary evidence placed béféra'    the judgment

under appeal awarded. VEV-_~,.€} ,E§:{A)()f-»-'  and directed
that the c0mpensafi§51;;g:."-a£i1diiz1.¥é   by the insurer of the
offending ianji'  af  of 6% per annum, from
the date of  fr}: payment, Bissafisfied with the

quantum 0f _award f:;a.s sed..E:y At';.1e "§' fibunal, the claimant appellant has

préééiited ihié aippes.{intera§l'ié"Ck§z1tending that the compensation ameunt

awaréi-%:dVVfjytii:a:Tf§iVb1i{;aV1'Lander various heads are on the lower side and

.

‘Q

4

S, W e have heard the leamed counsel appearing for

aed the l’€3Sp{)I.’).{1€3{}T.

6. Under these eircuzestances, the Aipoim Afhat”‘a.rise, fete”

consideration is, ‘whether {he appeiianr «v.i$”‘e11tif1e€iu.f<3r-..e;iha:fieeifiei1t of 'V

compensatien?'

7. The fact the’: the aeeideef of tipper lorry”

dashing against the    en 31.1.2001 near
Tamba Village is     'owner and insurer of the
101?? iii C1i¥eS't;iV"i'e     of the evidence placed

before it has reeeededV accident in question was due to
the rash and:.neg}igefifii efwiorxy by its driver. The said finding
eheiienged owner and the irasurer of the lorry.

Therej?ere,.e-.!*r;ere’:’ie nd.e’e;eed ta go into the said aspect of the matter in

T eV%e%*%aé:e;1. RAes«p021r.§e:;’r_N0.2 e the insurer has net disputed his liabiiity to

‘ efheewefier of file offending lorry in respect of the claim of the

out the accident £11 questien.

” “8; The Tribune} has awarded compensatien under varieus heads as

Aimder:

Lossoffuture earnings Rs. 33,75G;g%”

Pain and suffering Rs. 22=,'(35G.5{‘Vv ‘

Loss of arrzenities Rs.” .1_1’,.QGE}f~_ «. V

Medicai expenses Regi 2’5,6£) {).f~. _

Less of earning during Ereatinenf _ ‘Rs.”._ 2,50%: ‘ ‘ *

Conveyance and nourishmeni ” _ . Rs’. 6,0{3f}f–

Total. Rs. i;OQ.8i5£3;’-

9. According to the c0n_:§§i:i$ of §§égiiiiid..certiii§§ats§%V which is
marked as Ex.P.3, when the a;3_pvei’11;in§”__V§§?:éa.s:o the hespital
immediately after the si¢¢i’;§%i£;t, hafi’ “c-zrazgh inguijy to the righi
foot and amide jeirig @313.2″Eat€.{féii.’i_j<§it1ti'migséiies, tandem and lacerai
maileolus waie bleeding was present. The
haemaioma was' V.pLfé:sefit=.::$fi':v'.it:f§" ef the forehead. Yhe wound

certificate ,.3§fi1S<) ,estaEu:Ii:«:h§§'1thaVt X-my taken showed muifiple I'EidiCr~

aijaqtié the saft iissues of right foot and ankle and

fract11fé;._of ".i_Qix%é1":'i'3v§§__ sfiitfi of right tibia. The evidence on record fiiriher

'7? in(Viir:.ate3 tiiat }1'§.E?\}'c'i$ inpatieni for few days. The eviderzce of PW' .3-

éxarginéii before the Tribunal establishes that the appeiiant had

Vi"-4"_Vsiuffa:*eii'*péfiifianent disahiiity to an extent of 48 to 45% to the right kywer

._ , . ,_ 25% to the whale body.

W

7?

the dam of petzifian to the date of deposit. Respandent _
insurer 0f the efferxding vehicle £3 directed ta i./,?§1’t?.%.rA§ 1 >
compensatim aicsng with interest as stated
shaii be demgited within 8 weeics after éécisggting amautfi’ {Q

if any.

RS5 “‘