IN THE HIGH CQURT or KARNATAKA, aANGAE}f§i'RE\:»/Z " : "
DATED mas THE 15*" DAY::3'§i'3:.54N5,--'_é®é3j' l
BEFGRE A V I V'
THE HQNBLE MR. 3USTICf'§:._;_5§S.fiGl(2AB; i§_f§Es'*~l_VC:l!F§ I:'t".a;'EFRi"'
M.F A. r~;::;.7233 QEQZQQSV» gm %
BEIWEEN V 'V
NORTH EAST KARNATAKZA -_
ROAQ TRANSPORT (;€.z--R;P€:RA'J;{:r394 5
CENTRAL QF§ICE,sAR3i£3»E_.5é;DHfi;_NA _ '
GULBARGA, "
BY ITS MANAGIM3 fi:j{_RECTC)R.._V '_ "
V T _ ,..APPELLANT
L (5% ?3a=;§j wJ%A?£§wur4Aa, ADVOCATE)
SR1 SHES?iRAQ
_gi~0 SAi'.£C§RA,£¥1 MLLALE é ..... M -
'AGE?I3.AB*OU'I' 3? vsans,
"'-""AURAD--5,_._ mLL%K;;..- '
Oi'-SC'; 'FIELD --w'0R;;::. SUPERVISOR,
RJQL--.BETELa:0LQNY;~-_.~~
THANAKU£§HNG£7R,
RESPONDENT
tfiY SR1 SANYQSH BIRADAR, ADVGCATE)
‘._THIS MFA IS FILE3 U,/S 173(1) {}F MV ACT AGAINST THE
T h JUDGMENT AND AWARE} DATE§:18.6.G5 PASSES ZN MVC NO.2S5;’O3
T QM -»T!”–iE FILE OF THE PRL. MACT AND PRL DIST. EUDGE, BIEDAR,
AWARDING COMFENSATION OF RS.4,67,0G0/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
FA. FROM 3(}.?.20{}3 TILL ITS REALISATION.
THIS MFA CQMING GIN FOR FINAL HEARIFQG THIS DAY, THE
COURT GELIVEREC3 THE FOLLOWING:
excessively and without any basis therefor. Altheugh th:s.§frtiu_hd
of csntrihutory negligence is taken in the epseal
he gives it up in the course at the a:i”qu«meht, aisitihreV”issue’.is’
already decided against the apsella.nt hy—-._ti”iVisj”.= shy its
judgment, dated 283′ February, 2ooail.gal;;;se;;: inéli’-V”£’.”i’-‘A. ¥\io.7234
{if 2095.
4. ‘i;*ii+:i-it there is he basis
whatseever for ihcome to be Rs.4,500!-
a month. _ia’_lst>vj’._reis:eVs ever the employment cf
multiplier 1’S…l_L”i-ie as the petitioner himself has
admitteclgthat he has] ‘e’ight’ children and that his eldest daughter
“iséi;:eti””ieffthe*~.respurie’ent’s age cannot be below 40 years.
The;-‘stare’iziieurjeieigg-e–i*it multiplier would be ‘:14′ and not ’15’.
5.”*–Sri».fivijsyakumar also takes serious exceptien to the
of”i§s.S2,0Q0/- towards medicai expenses. He submits
doctor frum Prayavi Muiti Speciaiity Hospital, Bidar is
it ..”iiuZi:(V’;’»I”:l’i”:’i’ihVi’ie€Ii; the respondent himself has net said anything about
undergeirig the treatment at the said hospital. Even then the
H Tribunal has granted Rs.29,00G/- based on the receipt (Exhibit
H. 3.21%.
P31) issued by the said hospital. He else disputes ttieef
the medical bills at Exhibits P’? to 26 and””‘:.:’25’i’~:VVlee’V–li9’V”–..,
cerresponding medical prescriptiens ar;e’prfeci~zjcetl~; V x
&. Pet contra, Sri Sentosh Biriaitiiar, the.!eeeir:ited§l”1;fa’ti’nlsel Eel?
the respenclent claimant giggqgfrgits’i’t’i}et’j}~iVl§at. is eiltiardved by the
Tribunal is fair and proper this Court is
warranted in this V i it it
7. My ‘Records reveals that no
prescrietiefieferi;§ggf;,§diceii’i3i:l:ivsiteceiietéi are preeuced. The receipt
at P31 deeeeet the amount deposited at the
time ofAV.evdmis§’i::Vif: ta t’i1eV””‘l1ospital. The column “amount
a,fciepeeit’eci” gig seft bl1eaij’fe ruled eut. The position is the same in respect ef the
. ‘V7-r:ecei_c£ts for having purchased the medicines in the absence ef
riiedicel prescriptiens. Considering the gravity of the injuries,
the treatment given and the proceeure feilewee, I deem it
91334.
necessary ta reduce the ameunts awarded tewards medical
expenses from Rs~:.52,0G0/- to Rs.3G,{)0£3/-,.
8. ‘i’he”¥’ribunaf has taken the re$ppri_deni:’$”‘ii:§;;;sfri’e§ tr; nae ” V
Rs.4,500/- per menth. Aitheugh Sri Bfaebuafaa7’Wa.§rri§’re’,”iuridieiji
whom the respondent ciaims t0:_’i:~.e tiife.’S:iper$2i’3evr,..rris; nvc%:at–.i*
examined, i do not proppse to____i:re§i_u«ee tié’e–«i_iricor*ne from
Rs.4,SGD/- is Rs,.3,G00/- bee.e’u_se_L2{_afiree~iieiteh the reasoning
adopted by the ‘I”ribu.r!a! th,at*iii?Ie’~”.income is Iesss
than Rs.4,.S:00″/; ea’ur_i’r;’oTfj support his big farniiy
censistino of:VV’wil:’e_ aéiiriii: Hewever the Tribunal has
erred in emv;3f0u§i’n.gV_”‘-the’v«.niui_li’ti’eiiiier 15., The relevant muitipiier
a;§”pi.i.;abi.§’iv~1c}’i.i:Ic;i .__bne 1A§’te%<i«n'g the respondent's age to be areund
38.44? vyreairsi'~é§in:.§'i'ri.eri.;1g that his eidest daughter herseif is 20
i'~……i,r,ear$ erase.
Sirriiifiiy, the Tribunal has taken up the Said-up period
#7.. r–1–V.io~–t5e”_As’i.x_rf:onths. But as the appeiiant was an inpatient unity for
‘ _?___€iays and thereafter assuming that he was advised to take
bee’ rest for 2-3 menths, I deem it reasenabie to take up the
S “iaid-tie eerioci as three months and net as six months.
£834.
the res-pendent is entitled to the ioss cf of
Rs.13,,50G/- for the laid-up gaeriod of three d
16. Sri Vijaykurnar further :=_sub_mit?au3i;het’-étalgiiifiaeef
disability percentage at 40 is or:’th__e hiVc”;Aif;_eIi* side?’
that the doctor who actually treeteve’=eneVVceridueted examination
at Prayavi Multi Speciality e;;a_rnined. His allied
submission is thavtiagheh assessed that the
respondent has disabiiity of the right
leg, oniy ltd’ “_as”‘the disabiiity percentage in
relation not in a position to give
acceptabiiity tetiiei sLii:i.rr’iis_si’~i*i ef Sri Vijaykurnar fer two distinct
:_v*ree.sonef’~- {5}.__there”h~es” been ne specific crass-examination
»iih.a_’tseei;erv…:_i:;i’= disability percentage; (13) the weund
s’~……v.certifi’ca;te P6 enumerates the injuries as foiiows:
1, a” .c_ii~t iecerated weund on it knee joint measuring 2″ x
it ” vine’/2″‘, bone deep bleeding present;
‘*2 # of lower third of rt femur;
2 it 03′ upeer third of rt tibia and fibula.
Q
R
.@9w%W®r
‘ shali alse carry interest at the rate sf 6% per annum frem
date of presentation of the ciairn petitfun tit! the date of
payment.
It further states that the muries N32 and 3 are.’..er’ie$§?’§:b–;.z’Ss.,4in
nature. It is ernbable that the decter has deposed
40% disability in reiation to whole bo:dy’taking’ tide ‘ j
other twci injuries a¥so. I I V ‘
11. The ameunts awa:*rd’ab!e..i:6wa’:fd$;1ess offuture inceme
would be as fekewsz
Rs.4,500_/f g._4″én:_’aQA ‘R.s{3,o2;4oe/-.
12. N§aw..th’é..fiiei§§fi.ed–».§’w_e’:’d ‘s’1:a.n.:is as foflowe:
Amount
.”””‘””” – (R3-3
Less of amenities ‘ 30,000.00
gain, ‘i~n}’ur’y a’ndvtraL.:ma 25,000.00
. ‘Medical 1-.=:X;:vense§”” 30,000.09
» ‘ Food, ‘nutvrfiéon and attendant charges 5,000.00
” ..Loss._’je–€j ir’z¢eme for the talc!»-»up period 13,500.00
L was efTfg1_tfi:re income e 3,o2,4ee.oe
Euture~m’edicai expenses 4,008.00
V Total 4,G§,900.00
SI.
‘ Pertieuiéie
No. ; .
is clarified that the ameunts awarded/enhanced
585%.
14, The sum Gf Rs.25,a00/- deposited by the app’é¥f’ at at
the time Qf institution of this appeat is ordered to
ta the ‘E’ribuna£.
inn