IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THES THE 9?" DAY OF OCTOBER_?§009'iVj'---:: f r.-
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Aés;A£\{D BYiRA'REDD'z';:~-iD,___V 0 T
M.F.A.NO.116fS6;f2005*M:V; 0
BETWEEN: ii 2 V'
M. Ningappa,
S/o Erappa, __ .
Age: 43 years, '
R/0. Basamapuz'a«vi11agi?'» V . _ ' '
Hagaribommai1ah;é111iVTaiuki 4' Appeilant
(By Shri.F. Fieitigi, Aaaro.{:"¢{i¢}:
AND: _ . 0 _
1. Mange I-I. 'Adi:r:1'a_n'I,~._«i"'~«
S / o"H_o11yap'pa, ; =
_Var1 owner, "
.. No;KA~3'7 1.4986,
R/Do Ivlaranagifivillage
in Ranebennur Taluk,
'* 1Diste: _HaVeri.
2; Thehiariager,
Lfhitedi India Insurance Co. Ltd.
..Brar1ch Beliary,
Msktaii Building,
" First Floor, Opp: Bus--stand,
Haveri, (Policy No.248382/
3 1/32/2966 valid from
1.10.2002 to 11.10.2003}. Respondents
6
(By Shri.S. Srishaila, Adv. For R2)
This MFA is filed under section 173(1) of the.
Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to modify the judgrn_ent”‘~éind’~..
award passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.§__D’n)». _
MACT–VII, Hospet, dated 1.3.2006 in MVC.N04.?’4’?f.2iG03»,Us
and etc.
This appeal coming on for hearingAAthiisi4id§?ly.,i the f
delivered the following:
Junemsfig
The Counsel for the ..appel’la:i–t,iVp_:was-» heard i substantially.
2. The ,appellan.t,:l._is seeking
enhancement had met with
a motor viofiaccident, he was aged 40
years a and on account of the
accident,’ injuries to the right leg, right
little, toe, rig1’it.,_:Vhann:1, Aleftdhip, fracture of femur. lnspite of
Vsustairiieed. “ttjeatrr1e1ri’t,'” after incurring substantial medical
upon being discharged, he was found
suffering.fr’orn a permanent disability, which was assessed
by a “rneidical practitioner at 40°/0 to his lower limb. The
Tribunal accordingly computed compensation under several
i heads and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,15,O00/~
@
In so far as other heads, such as medical expenses
are concerned, the Tribunal has awarded meagre arnount-s of
Rs.6000/– and 123.3000/– towards medical air.-éigiideizkiy;–1:
Rs.lOO/- per day, and only Rs.bO()_pQ/f towardvsiiiipairi it
suffering, though admittedly the iappellantéi’=ha.d*–.suffered;vi a
serious injuries to several parts his body. Thejjgfgre, _’j’thei
Counsel would seek all round enh’a.ncernent’ in alsubistantial
measure .
4. Whpilelflthe r’espondent–insurer
would vehemently andlwould submit, that
this was ‘a*’fitllAlca;se:i’:wherelithe’ins-urerlought to have preferred
an aPI3cal to ‘*eXorbitant amounts that have
been granted _tol “appellant in the face of glaring
circuijr1stances.’i ” ‘-1-Ie would point out, that the medical
~praetitioAner-.4hav’ing assessed the disability at 40% to the
blower’1iVr1~15;,._the”‘effective disability in relation to the whole
body’ not exceed 10% by known standards applicable
bland therefore, the Tribunal having adopted 25% in respect of
‘disability for the purpose of computing compensation has
resulted in a lopsided computation and has conferred an
unintended benefit upon the appellant.
The fact that Rs.’75/ ~ has been adopted _
is also immaterial in this regard, sinceany if
daily wage having been taken at Rs.’f»5/ -bis made.’ good if
substantial amount of compensation
impression that the disability vifiould be
25% in the face of disabilitfi/’ to ‘the; beingflassessed
at 440°/0, which again is to the very
nature of lit; the appellant’s
leg is th}eT_there is no material
evidence to suffered any apparent
disabilitvanidhe11ce;thi’s~ exaggerated assessment of
disability by lithe medicial «practitioner. Hence, the claim for
.i”addition–al compensation under the head of ‘loss of future
aearnintgvIcapacityflis not tenable.
ln*–iso”far as compensation awarded under other heads
2 pgareiconcerned, the same cannot be characterised as meagre,
Tribunal having generously awarded compensation
i ‘ “towards loss of future earning capacity, proceeded on the
5
same scale and has granted compensation, which the
appellant hardly deserved. Hence, there is no ground”-.’for
interference by this court.
5. PM While the contention t.hat”t1é’3. :&1W3,’~1’d”‘fi(3″.’£1rdsVi”–V
‘loss of future earning capacity’ is ba.sed._ on an..yinaccu:;atelV’i
assessment, ought to be accented since-._lthellmrriedijcal
practitioner could not be held inholdilng that
the disability in respectllof_e_the would be 25%
when the disability in was 40%
and the claigrril Rs.75/~» it can
hardly be grant a wage different
from hence, as rightly pointed by
the Counslé1.._’for_ the }~§sp¢’i;den:, the compensation towards
» , the loss of future eavrning capacity is again on the higher side
any: -s.ho4rt’~fall, on the basis of the argument herein by
appellant, is made good by such higher
amountshaving been granted.
if , “gIn so far as other conventional heads, such as, pain
if and suffering, medical expenses, etc. are concerned, it