Narayana Mogaveera vs Chandrashekara Naik on 10 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court

Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

I-

nu ma men chum' on KARNATMSA AT  _ ~

pA+r%mn,'rma {run 1011! on or   T  * 

nnro3n» 

---u-_

' _Na;-ayﬂmm Mogavecra; '%  "

% KLiI1d'apai.u?a.Tgl'uk,.- ,  _ 

A.O ui='an-n. .  .. 2 . .. .
S/o Raxnaclgamjxfa Mpggvmfsla   V' _ _
ﬁfe Katbcithlnfiviiiagc,-_  4. 3 V ' 

 APPELLANT

% (Bra;-1% .Qi1a;.1;ijfa..S1'1e¢ty, Aidv.) %% % T

'"13?

1.  ' " Q1Lsu;d:ia$1:ekaJ;'a NaL1:,- main:-,
" " I H ..!!'3'- I '

 -:ﬁ}_lu%.Basa1ia';u ,
Rgai--ie,

A  « iﬂeive

 

K:.'uLndapma Talulg.

 .iP1-wéad Slutty.
.  .§?3_Ycars', ' .
.}    S/;u B1m_ja1__1ga_Sl1eLLy,
 _R/oKcr¢bcttu'.' 
Suede Hm»!-.2, !£_¥!I.i\.:_..,}'.Iu1'a§,'-T

% 3  Tnxe 01"ic11Ttal.I1'n5u1-'a11'I.:.t: co. L.m.,j* j L

-Div1'isi0nal'O1TiC.e, . _- T I -
".'§..-slant: P'ra!r.9.s.h Buildizzg,

-rug .!i( 1N'BLE.:MR. Juarttén   



II F1001', Court Road, Udupi,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager.

"5:

(By 'R. I'.}u11asi1cka1', Adv. for rt,

This Appeal is ﬁled -.Lu1deif_ Sr.:ctio,n'- 1173(1)"; of _l.i1c
Motor '¥.fe.11.is:l-as Act :=..;gr.-1.ins.=t*  jud.,',m_I;c11..t, ~--.c.i;1:-;«::I_r'::¢,a dated
12.09.2006 passed in NIVC«.»NQ.314;'-2003  the Civil
Judge (Sr. Eivn.) E35.' 'ﬁexnbcrjﬂdﬁ-i.  Kundapiifa
partly allowing the  pcgﬁtima... l'u.r_ compensation and
seeking enhancement of 'co1np11sE._deii.i1g: the evidence on record has awaulcsd

 AA .R__§.6Vf2',050/- along "with imclesl. Dissatisﬁed with the

0  éuﬁuullt awarded snaking euhanoexnent In Rs.2,07,950/-,

0 In': nu 'l\'l'l-|,rI|'l'£'l-l,l].

I} LJKLIJ PJ W
with legend to aciiollabicjlxegiigerxcc and iiabiiity  pay

c0n1pt:nsaI.i'o11has lxaculue ﬁnal. I \



ML}

2. Heard the lcanied Counsel appearing  

.=.=.1.=.d 1...-.'u....-IJ. £11.. 14:911. T1:1éAmpui!;t'--«« t1;1a.r.l. "ariVs'ts-.A~':' lb!' '

considelmiun is:

Whether Lhere isﬁisa, a11d".11§as¥;)1u'£nit§V award'

passed by Lhu;  'not, ia_t_lA1cVV.?appcllant
untitled In any enliallctluclri... n 111" the award, if so, how
much?' " ' -A *  1   

the foﬂowiixg  'i1.1"i~.:'5'_1z:ﬁ accidgeiit in  't-:'s"6n.

 Vtibia, patella with alnic-.1'ior

21) Fx~a;¢s.:.a:e :;-1f % %
 mcdiad  ;f_ 1* J: 11:21': lmec.

I &1;)_ nactm at

 <5)? 'AI3I'§lSi()Hl«1V "6i"1é  over body.

  has taken lrcatincul, which has bezel:

   by PW 2 1...'. '..'.\.n.:..  '1'1;_. i_1.;jl_;1'ics suslailmd

  by  appellant in the at:ciden'L are Iteiiecitati iii  P 3,

  _ __€Mom1Ll cc1'liI"1cate and Ex P 36 is the diaclmmgc smnl-nary.

The amount spent lnwanls medical care is at Ex. P 5 Lu P

3.5, zmgdicul bills. The disability ut:1'lil'1cz4l.e issued by PW 2

fl'



 A.  disability which has not been qutsxsliolaed. 19):.

«It-

is at Ex. P 37. Flow perusal of Ex. P 37, ..lxl1:.-It

the appellant has sulfemd as follows: " g ' " V %

Emit: was 'iii.)_  iii 1  "

c) He could riot» arid of 
was  10°/'§.  

a) He is .1...Lamo..(, $mn- case.

'  F; [ﬁe  ,  'i'idf; ﬁle momrcyoie.

A 1 A'    vauy weight.
4' .  Sta11d for long ljluo.
1 i}__ He cam sit suddenly.

.  I-It 1-u1Hnt\I I'! I."

."-. 'V . 1- 4
 2 1133  Ll'a$. time :3 10% N-*"L:.-9.1

   is the medical ﬁlo and  C 2 is X ray.

11

'business. He has pl'0(lIlC('3(i we   ii" the

\r,
/-



LII

Pauclmyal at Ex. P 39 and Line Ieeeipt for   xlhe

5
9:
'5:
E:

lhzding, it has to be helde. l11eV_   hot
aw:-mded the just  muzjieineeliolg to the
appellant a11dVLhe award   'en lower side.

'I _ (1..

5. Con§itieL;_i11g"' (if iiijmies  uy me

appellajvxig  from the evidence of PW

T 2 aJ1d'e1t2i:u1ne1it2§j'3v »_4ev_idei1L'e, it is reasonable no award an

' 'V"i3:{|I*i I niaiil Ild 5| n't_gI__'i

agdiiipllei emjiﬁelneatioll of Rs. 30,000/- under the head

  can

 ._ 'i1;e.ag1§e..,,_s1:VV.1::'of Rs. i,i)i)0/'- towards extra Inomisinuem,

iiiedieei'e£Lle11da111:e, though it has held that the appellant

 n .h§.~.s  uwealmeui. for about 4 lnonlhs, it has awarded

'  'R§.12,000j- towards loss of income during the period ul'

the period Of treatment and spent money for exira

'/,.



Ch.

nourished diel, for vecovery. Hence, he is  t.a)u be

awarded a sum of Rs.11,000/- Ln1de1.f_'L'i's::  

---'1------- - - - - - - - - - -=--nu -A- --- --'----'-'L ---- -'--*4--L-. '.~--Vs 6--'Qua; L2:-u.-nu
Iuuuai has uu'uucd ihui, 'chm: uyydiiuui. w, n can uplyu' t;:- it

3|'...
I.

as well as out patient. l1£is_:"&wa11ied_'as-Viineegle sum of
Rs.500/- Lmder I.hei_l'1s_ad _*"eenveysi1z;e c:l1a1 ges". In View of

the fact that' ll1e1'e__iHs'3  the appellant

an ouipeéjeijtéexnii  expeildiiuie iiii' iraveiiiiig
of  a(le1;dm;L it is reasonable in award an
addiﬁcxmlnpsms efA'Rs;4é00O/- under the said head.

L. zngunes sus!....mn.,.1, Lhe

 ._  for recovery was about six lnonijrs. Since

the  of the appellant. has been ﬁxed by the 'I'ri'bunal

V * at R s.3,000/- there is loss of income fur six months.

  Lhe 'I'ribunal has awarded loss of income for four

.

meiiﬂis, Elie a'””-Ilsa’. as e:…*.£.lw.l “:1 paw}.-.:m.., as}! 9. ….I ‘|……1’
‘vi

-~.’I

period of two monlhas i.e. an additional smu..Qi

under the said head.

r-x ma..- n\__:1.-____.1 1__.._ ____._._._:._v_’.-‘., r’:):;_ nu-_-ix»; “a.___1_-_’_v_r_ ‘i~.._v._”__~_ __m-
I . IIIC IITUUIIHI IIHS ‘~.AIV!§a-(3, IJEIIIE. 1053
alnellilies. In my view, ¢x)1iaiiit:1’i11g’l11¢§”iiéitL1i’:;: ol’inju1’it:3
sustained, the alxnuiiial a1i\:ar(ies.i_V.1VjI~.a;lc1′ l11Ae”said’ head is

meagre. Tl.1t:_g1ppell:i1il§”i:; be awauiud an

alriveai iii, L’61lciiiiii0ii”‘iiJti§. Vii1t:1°e is 5% pcrum ‘ mni.
auiti-.V__ 11lLi1l.iplit:1’ of 15 is applicable,
consideiing iwljiﬂn a11’iv¢:d at a ﬁnding that he is

eigiitlad uf Rs.27V,0(}O_/-_, but has hcld

E
c
3
E
H
5
E
E
:

i
E
:

._ and how much is me loss due to ‘line

ci”i:aal;si:liLy:°:suITt:~1t:d, has not awarded any sum under the

* h.t;adV””’¢lus:s of future earning capacity”. In my view, the

ﬁnding is pu1’ve1’se_, as the ‘I’1’ibunal has arriv¢:d_al. the

aunru-Innu-:n.vnu I’I:.|I , {an inn nf’ Ilmu nu-nugliag-uni sun;
‘d’J-I-“ll-|-IWIK-‘1’ l.l.lI’«I.l.- ‘AI-1′-I .I-INK’-IKIIIIKJ ‘II. I-Jul’-J ‘Iv I-I3-I I: ‘V

§=

Rs.3,000/- p.111. The Tribunal was required to assass thc

\
L
/I

loss ol’ful.uvc earning capatzity by taking l.ll_(f:”‘iIi£:.:V¢}!!:ltV§ :;§e:« ,1;

no»

._l1t: ﬂat…’ 91′ LLI.-.: .=a.cci…e:.-.£, at §-€s.(%,{}{}£.}~;’- «i.i*c=.1i:’~.”i»;-;sV-_

ev”dam:e to show ihcm is 5%:=.Adisa.Tlh)jiityhh, St1lTe.:1i:v.if-hhgzhagi hthe’ 5

mullziplicr applicable is 15′, -1935 6i’.v_I”‘L”11.uVrc.
or reduction of futmt: :fRs.27,000/–

(Rs.3,000_/- x 12×15:{511do -1;c.= ‘1*n;I.»-.m..1

has and in 11%.”. aw-a:–‘d:2:§g “*”id'”= ‘the head “ioss

oi’ i’u’Lure fa ‘

“li””Iiiii sum oi’ i€s.9i,’25i’.’i/’– as

. a:;11}1§:1zsa,{it:1;, as detailed esupra. The award amount shall

6% per annum from the dais: of petition

of deposit by the 3*-1 respondent Insuram:e

2 Cuxunpalxy, which has _2___._i mu; 111.. 1i.r=r.!.-i!i._-,1. ‘Lac -3”

“map-u1’d”*1t “him ucpuaui the 1-.ni1am:cd colnpcnsaiion

‘Ha1nuLmL in the Tribunal, under Rm inljlnation to the

appellant, within a period of three unuulhs

I cum ‘ uuu: _¢-;-u mi-diiaw tin: i’11.”E.-.:1’1:1:s

.Iudg§

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel

Narayana Mogaveera vs Chandrashekara Naik on 10 March, 2008

Share this:

Like this:

Related

Leave a Comment Cancel