High Court Karnataka High Court

Murigappa S/O Basavanneppa @ … vs Mustakahamed S/O Mohammadalli … on 10 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Murigappa S/O Basavanneppa @ … vs Mustakahamed S/O Mohammadalli … on 10 September, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna


(BY SR1. K.VAS’_E’RAD, A’mrA.)A ~

AND:

I. 1′

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARRATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD

DATED THIS THE 10:11 DAY OF S}3FTEfivIBEI§,

BEFORE
THE I-IOINPBLE MR. JUsT1C1=;:”A,s. BGRANAAZ

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A;>PEA,1.1135520475/2be9qM.*ir)

BETWEEN:

MURIGAPPA I
S /0 BASAVANNEPFA PARAsAP1>A_ 4. V ‘
PARASANNAVAF–:1@ }?ARAN_NANAV’AR”,_
AGED ABOUT 42-.yE.A}gs, ‘ H
: 3 A ~.

R /0 MANJt}NATHNA–.{::AR,, – ,
TQ:HAVERL_”‘ * ‘*.»-‘
DIST:I-IAVERI;.__ ‘

… APPELLANT

mi s’rA_1<;AHA1~.4Et5

_ s/0 MOHAMMADALLI HOSARITTI,

""'~='AGE:MAJoR,.. A

0CC:BUSIN"££SS' 35 OWNER OF THE

1' ;.Ap":0~RIcKs1é£Aw NO.KA 27/2921,
R/Q SGQLAMATTI,

" HAvER;I:1sTR1cT.

I i:j.a1v1s1oNAL MANAGER,

THE’ ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

VIKAS COMPLEX,

‘*1

1ST FLOOR,

HUBLI.

(BY SR1. B. L.B.MANNODDAR,ADV. FOR R2
R-1 IS SERVED)

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173I{‘1}<._.QE 'I'vIV°A.oT<AGAIN$T':
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED '"–vAIIII"II/09/20O8~V.I_"_PASSE'D IN '

M.V.C.NO.93/2006 ON THE FILE op THE__D1v_ST'.RICT.JIIDGEESL MACT,
HAVERI, c.c. PRESIDING oI«'I«*Ic"ER_, FAST' ATEACK coum', HAVERI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PI:;TITIo_N?~§4.I+ioI'e-Ii,CQMPENSATIoN AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF' COMVPE-NSATIoN.–~«..S " V

THIS APPEAL coI;vIIN;;o}" DN. Eaoré ADI/II'S~SI_o:N THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE'~EOIIIEIQVIIII-=I_Q:…._

The clairnant~a'ppeI1lan't 'Deforelthis court Seeking enhancement of
the cor_npenSa.ti_D'n as againstvlthei Sum awarded in MVC. No. 93/ 2006.
The lfawdardved the total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-.
Several contenjtions:have.:be'en urged by the learned counsel for claimant

enha'ncerr;'ent:'of the compensation. The learned counsel for

fVapp'el1a11t."}1.asL also opposed Such contentions towards enhancement of

"theV'eon;pe'nVSation. However, what requires to be noticed in the instant

Lease with regard to the grant of just compensation.

l

'E!

2. in this regard it is seen that, in so far as the loss of future
earnings the Tribunal though had noticed the evidence of the Doctor who

was examined as P.W.2 and with regard to the percentagej”,:iiij,Jsi!;ai

disability as stated, it is seen that the claimant had suffered

upper 1/ 3rd of left tibia. He has been thereafter’ treateti'”

recovered. In any case he is an employee of and’co’nti’nuese—.to*?kio

so and as such there is no loss of future-._income. VHoweaier,, what

noticed is that the amount awarded toward:-:..ylo~ss ofhamenitieis suffered
due to said injuries is not properly.c’ompe1:jsa,te’dV:andas such a further

sum of Rs. regard to the pain and
suffering the amount ..–the lower side and a sum of
Rs.10,000/– is jawardedsi’ In’;.ad’ditio’n to the same, to make good the
amount’towa1-dis food nourishI’11en’t and conveyance a sum of Rs. 5,000/ —
is is therefore entitled to the total enhancement

V’Rs,.30,O(.)i0 wific].;’1i*Vi.i’:_;’n.Eerest at the same rate as awarded by the

The enhanced amount of Rs.30,000/– with interest shall be

the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from

i ~.thefdate.”of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit, the entire amount

isha.1ibe.Vdisbursed to the claimant.

i

‘I

3. In terms of the above, thf: appeal stands disposed of. _

as to costs.