_ Parappa Slo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ff ~
cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWADM
DATED THIS THE 13? DAY Gvl¥'»A§V)C1TC)IE'3ElZ';fiA(V}V<}23 V: V
BEFORE % %
THE i~iON'BLE MR.JU€{ri<;E KA;RA1»mfiN.NA..;v""
M.F.A.NQ. 614;2j§§_(_)Q5'-»{MYl 1
BETWEEN:
Uribamavar, 2 2. =
Age 32 years,__. 0'.$c.;_B'u_sia;isess,<.' __
~
Dist:Ba.galkot..{ VTV 'v __ .
APPELLANT
(By srm._k_ K 'jam " }£m{Sri;"Lokesh Majavalli and
Smt. B. I). Shpbha, Ad\js.} .
. ' s._1Fare3.p§3a Uribannavar,
" ag'c:".'Ms,§6r, Ooc: Business,
cfc Tyres Belagali Circle,
x Nkgthalingapma,
'!'g;: Mada], Dist: Bagalkot.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Through its fiivisional Manager,
Divisional Office,
Shanbag Chambers,
Kirioskar Road,
Bclgaum. RESPONDENTS
(By M/s Axis Law Inc. – Sri.K. Sridhar, Adv. for R2,
%
Ex)
R-3 notice dispensed With)
This MFA is flied under secirion 173{3)’of vpraymg»
to enhance the compensation awazd”od« by’ tlzge .III«.Agid’i.” Ci-ed] —
Judge (Sr. D11) and Addl. A. .?Be§_ga1.1m, i’».:i*’_’ur'(‘)
No.2278/O2date<:13C}.1O.20O4,afld._'e'i:sV. V. 2
The appeal coming oi1~..foi'..ohea1;iag
delivered the following _;'udgmof1t; u
The appeilajgt 1: chaflcnging the
judgment Civil Judge (Sr.
D11) and ‘Q-‘MVC 340.2273/02 dated
3o.19.m4.eooo A o
” «. has awarcied compensation of
Rs.5’Z,72G]~v» interesi at 6% p.21. The grievance
though the appellant was eaxning
L’ month and though he has produced
Show that he was runnirxg a business and
pay;in.ge_a1es tax, the Tribunal has taken his daily earnings
V. }g£’Rs.?o/- which is not justified. Further, it is submitted
though the appellant sufi”ers from 59% permanent
‘V Hciisabiiity the Tribunal has taken it as only 10% disability m
assess the loss of fixture earning capacity, which is on the
lower side. The Tribunal has not awarded any
towards loss of earnings during laid up tizfzl
appellant has pn:-fexred this ap}ié»éZb’ii;r._ _t he i
judgment and award. T j
3. I have Heard , KL{1ka;f§1£§.
a§pearfn:1g for appciirzagt. f.§’ific;%.:~’rV:[: –;_1o fépmséfimfion on
¥:>eha1fof¥:he mspondeafifs; H V . ‘
4. ‘:f1;_¢: this appeal is,
whether the income of the
appellant the compensation
payafijt .. .’ ”
produced the material, such
as,._{ receipts to Show that he was nmnmg a
::£;:fii1:!;Vea1’iI;g Rs.6()O0/ – per month. The evidence of
_.4~:V.:’si*iows that he has sustained firacture of left of
rzehk iifimegrous bone undispiaceé. Thcmfore after the
‘ : .;;1§:cid.c311–£”he was admitted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum, wherein
A’ h€: was an ixzpatitmt for about 15 days and thcrreafier he was
VA .. to [}r.P,B.Shirahatt1″s Hcisspit,-31, Banahatti and again
shifted t9 Qr.U”;:21arani.’s Hospital, Gekak who in {am mfezrmd
P!
r2
\ -u
to Drbanigoudar of Qggrdal, who has ‘Q11
abdomen portioxzz, for which he has _~ V’
towanis medical expenses and spe-eAfiai’d«:et”etc;.’ <
6. rmge doctor P.W.4 haS £i§§2[$0§f:d t’I.ig;1:A}1e
the petiitioner and ibuncl PO’?
hanging plaster co$tva;31;:)lieei..Aet{§ inciuding
left shoulder joint. X–ray of left
shoulder sh9v:%f§ ‘ hueaerous bone
undisp1a<;et:gD».¢4_. up and carry any
heavy. .. on ieft sheulder joint
and He has filrther staied that
due to anti fracture, there is Iimitatiou
of.}%1'1:ioi5on &_[:aat.ient's left shoulder joint. Thus
the clinical and radiologieai finéings he
._d§;i,fied pafient has got the permanent physical
the extent of 33°/ca in respect of left upper iinab.
A. Pipweiiei." the Txibunai has granted compensation of
' "AV_VRs–;$O0O[ ~ under the heaé "pain and sufierings" which is on
.—-}'{he lower siée. Consiéering the nature of fiactuxe and pain
sustained by the appellam: is inciined to award
M \
another sum of Rs.8,0GO,'- under the heat?
sufifefings. The sum of Rs.2{),00O/ ~» awarded'
"medical treatxnerit and other .§11ei¢fien1:a;§& just
and proper and it eioes not require;af;yV enhaigremenf.
as the loss of Ahthe
concerneci, the Tgibuoal hasV_;_1}§:At»V an}?_Aeor;:1pensation.
Considering the faetSF.:$11id'«–. of the case the
Tribune} ougliztto of appellant at
Rs.1()0/- :"""memrom, taking into
eonsic1e1*e1ii:ior;:_)A_'i4§}e which has afiectesi
his .1115 appellant is entitied to
» towards the loss of earnings
dt'u;ifige.the As per the cause title of the claim
t1%1e…ela1'mant is shown as aged 30 yams but the
the wrong multiplier to assess the loss
oi"-f:1tu_fie' capacity, so also the monthly income taken.
by tl:1e..2ippel1an'£ is also incorrect. However considering the
in-jtiiiies sustained by appeilant the loss of earnistxg capacity
appeiiam: as taken by the Commissioner to assess the
quantum of eompensatiozx at 10% is pmper and correct and
"IE2
4§'33"j"
does noi require: any interference. Rance, the
awarded under the head loss of future”
requires to be modified. Accordi1’i§iy”1’3:!¢ ‘ap;re3A},§i1b;tVV.i:s”‘é;1ti?1e i.
te compesnation of Rs. 57,600]
The compensation awmfieé thcé hegidu.;l§::=s§”f§f;§ii1ienitie§
in life’ is just and V tf:§Vason«a’£)’1:;?. «fiat any
enhancement. t ‘ H u ‘V .V ‘
7. A¢¢ar¢1:ng;i3%;’:’t§}{§: ‘zgfifiwed in-part. The
appellant:__ compensation of
Rs.7 1v,_6,{)_{) ~- .cQ_£2″§peI2sation of Rs.5?’,7’2()/ —
already axxafifigd -. b3′. ti3:if-., ‘ ‘ The mspmdeng
no.2/insuraxxzt is pay the enhanctd
“of. Rs.?1’;é£_) {}/- tzgsther with imerest at 6%
date hf no.2/I1:1sura1:1::e Company
TV depdeii fiié -éihanccd oompensatfmja wfih accrued
% Mr weeks from tochy.
sd/-
Judge
“‘. :u§ubu*