IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT D!-IARWAD
9A1-E33 THIS THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009"
BEFORE I H
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BoPA1s:_z\fAV..V ' in
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL r;b:7'§46L2ooA6ei§av;V "_
BETWEEN:
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Belgaurn Do, through its Regional omcéi " '
No.144, Subharam Complex I v "
MG. Road, Bangalore - 560 001 _
Rep. by its Administrative Office.rv--.. _ V
Sr. 8. B. Hombal i
14 H H H S ' APPELLANT
(By Sri. N. R. Kuppellur for "C. "Seetharama Rao, Adv.)
AND:
.....
W/'ow. Kencxhappap Waiikar
Aged*37 'years "
R /o. Hi:kke_ri., '1*'q".'
'e1€3e1gaum'I)iSitric;.".1. v
S _V(iBy"S::i_p. Shi§ara1jjP.vMudhol, Adv.)
RESPONDENT
J;
J
I
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.4.2006 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1553/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.),
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, I-IUKKERI, AWARDING'--.> A
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,29,700/-- WITH INTEREST @4.6V%._ RA
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION. I
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _- "
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company has call’ediin_ques’ti.oni the fudgment
and award dated 12.04.2006 p’a~ssec_lxin_:l\liV_C1:Noi1553/20004. The
quantum of compensation as Tribunal is
questioned.
2. On hearing the lea1rn:e’cl.i-‘Counsel for the parties, the only
aspect arises for’c«on_si.deration with regard to the quantum
is fegardiiig thve’.llo’sst” earning capacity which has been awarded
I . by the .. I I I
~ The”learned Counsel for the appellant would contend that
was not justified in reckoning the disability at 30% to
. Tfliepiiewhole body-, when the Tribunal has accepted the disability of
I
‘I’
34% stated by the doctor with reference to the right upperillit
is therefore contended that the normal ratio of 1/”Ij3_.”d if
accepted for the whole body and the compensation tokbeg
reduced.
4. The learned Counsel for thellrespondent,_however§, sought
to justify the award passed bythe contended that
the Tribunal on noticing the avocatiorifof has thought’
it appropriate to awardi_’– the reckoning the
disability at 30% does not call for
interference.
5. in thelightrof ‘whatl’l1as*–.been contended, the fact relating
to the nature of the-» injuries suffered as indicated in Ex.P.4 –
r:ertif.”1cEate is__not inwclispute. The nature of injuries also
indica’tes.u.pper limb 1 /3rd radius of right forearm. In
7,}-a’ot the said is the cause for the doctor to state the
Inv.f_this regard, the doctor has issued the disability
4’eertificate,j_vyj1ich is marked as Ex.P16. The said document would
. ilrid–ilcate”5that the doctor has assessed the disability at 34%.
J»
‘9
Though the doctor has indicated the said disability, _a_s_l’_
procedure ALIMACO, the doctor has not thereafter
disabiiity to the whole body. The Tribunaihas and-_,e eefeiieeueeeeievl
further to indicate the basis for reckoning thei’d’isabili’tyyi.at.i30%;’xiii’e.
a normal circumstance, when the diisvability stated?to’–the'”1imb, it
the conventional method is to adopt—~il;A.]iv3*5’~~..of as the
disability to the whole body case, even though
reckoning of 30% cannot «ico’nitention of the
learned Counsel be taken as 1/3rd
also cannot be claimant is a lady
and even yfraiciture, 3 Considering that there is
disability to the.._riglhti and she is engaged in milk
vending business, bel’a1;ipropriate to reckon the disability
«has been stated by the doctor in the
facts and circun1s’tancevsi.~of the present case.
v.6. ?{fi”the’–iy4V disability is reckoned to 17% and if the
c_omp’ensat3.on under the head of ‘loss of future earning’ is
“the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.91,800/–.
the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,62,000/- under the
l
said head, the same calls for reduction and as such, 3
under the said head is reduced by a sum of Rs.70,2″C5.jO/
other respects, the compensation awarded’*by “the_:.’I5rib_ur1aIV«’
retained.
In terms of the above, the appuéa1_xhstands’ ‘disposed; of. No
order as to costs. The amount i:ri”V-«:1ep4.5sit_ shali beremitted to
the Tribunai.
gab