1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 1 118 DAY OF SEP'PEMBEE~?,..A"'f..§--O(')4£:?y"'. =
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JusT1cE:"%i~R?&MA1~&zA"'
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 930.491
BETWEEN: L' J i V
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.L'I'D';«-,, _ 2
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, ; '
SHANBHAC: CHAMBERS, '
KIRLOSKAR ROAD, V V :' _ -
BELGAUM. = _
NOW REPBY REVGEONALVOI-?F1C}?.-;._
RESIDENCY Rogacaoss, : = _
8ANGALoRE_,-- S60 025.,--- "
RERBY 1T5-gs ASS'1XMANA.{3ER
1*?-JP-YARA_Ni. """" APPELLANT
(BY.SITQNEEGHALCLKQL-EKAR, ADV. FOR sm S.K.KAYAMA'l'H AND SR1
M.A12z:N«.Ts>oN:~4A9;>;a;g=a.13v. 3
~ .. .1' : LKUMAR SANTHOSH,
_ _ V 'AGED as; _Y EARS,
S.j'O,.SURE'€_-H HUGAR,
. _«, R] o.M_AL;.i'KARJUNGALL1,
f=A'F'ANL;) POST MURGOD,
V T SAU.NZ3A'i"I'I TALUK,
A BELGAUM BEST.
QLADAM HASANSAHEB PENDARI,
MAJOR, occ. BUSINESS,
R/CLMURGOD VILLAGE,
SAUNDA'I'TI TALUK,
BELGAUM DIST. REsPoNp;E_'r5§fs~4'ej"»Ve. V' 2
(BY sRI.G.sHAm<AR GOUD, ADV. FOR R-2, HARISH.S.Mfi;iC%U,R,TV:A-ASV;v_" ' "
FOR SR1 M.B.NARAGUND, ADV. R-1)
iiiiiiii
THES MFA IS FILED U/S.173{_1) A§:Au$1s"r° "
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.27/2/2006.PA.SSED"iN_M\(C.~18'2Sf'f}4 "ON
THE FILE'. OF THE ADDLMACT, sAu1§A'm, AWARDING A
COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,31,e0§:7'+.V_w1TH"}?:J'1%1;Ri§;A.;NTE§2E's*r"AT 13%
RA. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION "£11.;'E1E;A;A,zV:v;. _
THIS APPEAL COMiNG_ oN:"EdR.Iga_mEs1oN *".E«"I"i[VIS DAY, COURT
DELIVERED THE EoLE<jvwI§:e(3_, _ V g. V "
- V
V. fi "" fed' by the insurer of the vehicle
correctness of compensation awarded
the my Saundauza, in MVQ1825/2004, whereby the
" excessive compensation to the respondent at
V with interest at 8% pa. from the date of petition til}
” V h _ (if realisation.
The case of the respondent] claimant is that he is a
n:::Aident of Murgod village aged about 16 years, he was hale and
Ag ,7
if
1 ;_
‘ E
healthy and studying in 931 standard and he was A’
member of the family by distxibuiting news papers. V’ ‘
at about 10.45 am. he was proceeding by _
left side of the mad. when he was neagffbns V
bazar road opposite to Corporation the
limits of Murgod Police statien,’jj4eV.t:ee}§’%’ieee£je’g:’-Reg.Ne;miin.6564
came in high speed with Vrash and dashed
against the petitioner,’ at “«tbei_”«re§1f3Ondent/claimant
sustained g1ievousi’i¥1j;;j–;esv. the wound certificate
Ex.P.2. Themtoxeg teeatxnent both as inpatient
and outpatinet anéi towards medical expenses.
Inspite of ‘trevatfient unable to sit, squat, stand for long
t1me’v._ee§1e’eeVpeed1e<bicye1e. Hence, he filed the claim petition
» . before Saundatti.
«V3. Tonpmvebthe nature of the injuries he has pmdcued Ex.P.2
” corroborate his evidence he has examined P.W.2
}53a;sett;::aij;’F.PatiI, who has treated him as inpatient and also as
VT . V and issued disability certificate Ex.P.2. Thexefore, after
L4″‘~,]”cons£dezing the evidence of respondent No.1 and the documentary
Eiz’.//9
evidence at Exs.P.1 to R5 learned Add1.MAC’I’, Saundatti, awarded
compensation of Rs.2,81,€}90/– with intezest at 80/0
under chalienge.
4. Heard the arguments of the u
appeann’ g on both sides and perused the -. I. _ ”
S. The contention of ‘i€.a1nV eéico1_11113ei:..:”ib1* ‘Vjthe ” V
appellant] insurer is that the ‘ toL11Iy…vi§en~ed in
awalfiing compensation undef’ Liof earmn’ g
cayacity’ to the extent _of.__Rs. ‘iespondent has
not proved oefore’ “he was earning Rs.2,000/-
pm. by disttibufiyggo I}6\g7’S Vthat village. The Tribunal has
taken 1oss._%:of Aeeziifiacify at the rate of Rs.2,€}00/- p.m. is
i1§.eoriect.._,VL”I I. that the doctor has clearly admitted in his
350/13 of the permanent partia}
2; 1.)&E:.i;1iCU4alr limb ‘out the Tribunal has taken the
‘ body peeihanent disability at 25% and considering his age, a
Re;:1,08,00{)/– has been awarded towards loss of future
which is totaiiy incorrect. It is argued that even though
doctor has not opined that on account of disability the
../E .
2,;’,/
2/’
2-
eikarriage prospects of the respondent No.1 was t.
then, the MAC’? has awarded Rs.2S,0OO I ~– tQW_a1’ds_. ” ” ‘V
prospects which is contrary to the
income taken to assess the loss of Veareings’-i=s’vsdthotit’..any basis. 1
In the absence of any docuxnentary eetdenteef the fact
that respondent NO.1 is a j’ ought to
have assessed the loss of —- the courts
below has taken totally incomect.
Likewise, the Vofller heads is totally
incomect.
6. Exfen though_’Vthe–._t1espondent has not produced the
medical show has spent Rs.33,804/« the Tzibunal
has’-afiavatiiieti [ssfptpof Rs.33,800/- towards the medical expenses
without proper appreciafion of the evidence.
ptaysu 2:_t}.:v1’at the appeal be ailowed by reducing the
4: “awarded by the Tribunal.
“C513. the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
o Host/Vc}’a1’mant has submitted that the ieamed war has rightly
uiptalien 25% of permanent disability to assess the loss of earnings of
“X/E35 “”> …/”‘W’
2 ° ;.
the respondent] claimant. Since Murgod village is
quarters, there is a police station and bus stand the K
people are getting news papers from ‘
piaces. Therefore, respondent No. was ass news
distributor and earning Rs.2,000/-“‘p:i12.. V’
has rightly taken his inoo1iic._ t csfisi.%;¢sfig,e’me’ of the
injuries and the nature of the by him, both
as inpatient and Ot:’l.12}1t.A¢:1’fi’Vf.ifL’/lit the evidence of
doctor] P.W.2, gthe suffers 35% of
disability are he and stand for a long time and
walk pmperifi in the sports. Therefore,
(: QI_1siderin§uthese Tribunal has rightly come to the
conclusion _jn.awém:ding amount on various heads. It is argued
that produced medical bills and cash memo
V\I’vVo;rth R’s;33;3(.}Gf;’– which were marked as Ex.P.7, hence the
t fifihfly quantified and awanied the same. Thus, it is
‘that the appeal does not survive and the same is Iiablc to
‘T by confirming the judgment and awani passed by the
I
7
8. Having heard the arguments of the learned c.o1z.1ise1
appearing on both sides, the only substantial question…tliat:
for my consideration and decision is Whether T’ V’
justified in awazding compensation undef different.
9. I have carefully examined the
by both part1e’ s. There is no disptiteavith “r(‘=,–ggimd to Vvehicleli’
involved in the accident and “flr_1_e respondent
No. 1 on 25/7)’ 2095 near The Wound
certificate discloses. the };as”:.;-iigstained grievous
injuries for lie treatment both as inpatient
and outpatient. summaxy discloses that he was
;aamgttcd;ei:5,4,i7/2oo4«;;md discharged on 3/3/2004. This fact
of of respondent has been made clear by
he has sustained in all 4 injuries. P.W.2
assessed the permanent partial disability.
‘o€.pundei~going ueaiment there is swelling. Thezefoxe, after
ilrieeent X-xays by examining both chemically and
iadiologcally, P.W.2 came to the conclusion that the 15’
iespondent sufiers 35% of the permanent partial disability to a
particular limb. Even in the cross~examination he .i
that he has assessed the disability 5
particular part of the body. Wheteas, ‘«TIibn,iia1i
permanent partial disabiiity to the of 25023 toassess the loss V
of earning capacity. Of has not
produced any salary’ employer i.e, the
agent of the news; 11i3;’.}.d€f(*’ fig working as news
paper distzibutdn about 16 years. But
according ‘iie;vvas aged about 14 years,
Therfore, toha wrong conclusion by taking
his incomeat tliieirate. / – per month. So, in the absence
any ..income’ia–«f_he case of minor, the notional income
“a:t’Rs.15,000/~ pa. Therefore, the income taken
the Rs.24,000l– is excessive and the same is liable
396 “Considering the evidence the Whole body disability
12% and considexing his age though the trial Court
applied the multipleir but it is not correct in taking the
notional income of the zespondent at Rs.24,00()/- pa.
Accordingly, the respondent No.1}5%iaimant is entitled to
X
/47 ,.,/”//
,. ‘X’
_.4/,
9’2″‘
Rs.32,400I- ie, (15,000 x 12/100 x 18 = 32,400)
future earnings’.
10. Of course, the appeflant has of
lower limb and ether 3 injuries
compensation of Rs.-40,000]; ‘for another
sum of Rs.4€},O0O}- for lesshhiehhof is excessive
Respondent No.1 is Q:1iy_.ent5£:ie€i;.~f£i§ /- towards
‘pain ane sufl’e:.(_’i_t1%’a Rs’; .1; the head ‘Ease of
amenities in _ii§e’. spent towards medical
expenses is No. 1 has pmduced meséical
bills Exs.I?.7» Worth Rs.3’3′,8{54/ E which does not required reduction
s;§p.5;’s;h¢ %;’;§,:i’bi1’ifLaIVh’is«_n’ghtV Vhihhswmeling the same.
– e’§é¢gt01.=mat the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/–
each t0w§s1ds- of expectation of life and loss of marriage
.. pzespects. tefeomse, Rs.25,{)OO/~ awarded by the Tribunal for the
1′–.V.xioss’x_uefb_expectation amenities in life would be taken into
. ‘hieatenhsfierafion and the Tribunai is fight in awaxeiing Compensafion
‘lifidfir the head ‘loss of amenities in life’ and the same is retained
eflowever, P.W.2 has not opined that _/e1:’e is loss of marriage
/’7′
‘ ‘\
10
prosepcts on account of the injuries sustain’ ed by the
account of the accfient and, of course, his ev§d:enee.lV:
indicate that there is a dimcuaty in sitting’; stanciing
for long time and peddling the cycle
elicited from the mouth of the”rc.__is in” V
performing marriage. Thexjefore, 3 l by the
Tribunal under the head has ‘of is totally
incorrect and in my_A’opini(.:n,”‘he’A ,no_t entitled for the same
especially tehen. awarded to him under the
head ‘loss of it However, Rs.10,000/- awarded
bgthe underw.l..lthe food and nourishment, travelling
Ieasonable. Therefore, as per calculations,
the tespondent No.1 is entitled to a sum of
‘ ‘ -.
]..2,_ Assfar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is
though the interest awarded by the Tribunal is on the
llihigher..side, but considering the fact that awarding of interest by
is discretionary and also considering the nature of
theinjuries sustained by the zespondent, the
8°’/E. p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is
13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly’
and award passed by the
commnsation of Rs,2,81,000’_/~ is .. with
interest awarded by the at ._£ron1 the date of
petition till the date of.paym:e:-.t.:._ deposited by
the appellant to the Tribunal
concerned.
* e Sd/’-r
eeeee Iudgé”
*Mvs ‘