-1-
IN ms H§GH COURT OF KARNA'l'AK.§ 6 'f C 'f«_: .
cmcurr BENCH AT DHARwA9_j5. V' '
DATED THIS THE 1517! DAY or _ Q H
PRESEN;1f
THE HOWBLE MR. JUS'i'!_(_3E $;R."BANri'§}:R?e§A%}fH_i'§ .
AN::+.
THE HOWBLE MR. Jijsfirrctes ..'§'E;N«!JGOPAL};\ GOWDA
M.F.A.N§§.v15§1VfgGU6£h}fi&1'--'*'
S/0. Sathy*anaxayatxa_ Josimi,
Age: 21
Ooc:_Studei;t V' ,
.....
A P. Patil, Adv.)
Insmance Company Limited
V’ 2″‘ Floor, SLV Tower Men Road,
Parvati Nagar, Bcllaxy.
V’ Smt. Veda J.S.
S I O. Sathyanarayana Jyoahi,
. .. APPELLANT
-3-
Age: Major, Owner ofmmuti Car
Bearing No.KA O4/C-38-45
R10. 13*” Block, Kinnal
Tq. & Dist: Koppal.
(By Sn A.N. Kushna swmy;JAa-3:)
This MFA is under’ 17’3(:1′)~ of: M.V. Act
against the judgmaentVan%iTawax:;t’ x1;12.2eo5 mssod in
MVC.No.10/05 913 the cii~eii’unci;ge isr. D11.) 65 Add].
MACT, Kappa; ‘ciaim petinion fix’
compcnsatkrfiiv of compensation.
hwiing, this day,
VENUGOPALAVGf3wDA4″\.!;{d§fivmnd the following:
%JubauExr
an injured pmson in 3. motor
*i&’»;«’:”1_1’icl'(:::’-Q’ being dissatisfied with the
of Rs.96,000/– with interest at 3% per
has preferred this appwl under Section 173(1)
4 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act?
\/A
‘T
-3-
2. The fact that the appellant sustziihetélet
grate-v’ ous injuries’ in the aecide1it’*’whi€§h d’n V
21.6.2004 involving the ‘
second respondent and Wrijdentt” V
is not in dispute. cm tion
of Rs.8, 10,000] – the sum of
Rs.96,ooo/-;;”;[j’– =: *
Confrzpany by filing tlw Written
statemeiflé * . the clam for eompensafion,
tm; appenant himself as mm and has
‘A On behafl of the rwpondenm,
H V{%x;.vVa’fI[]iI1Gd nor any document is produced.
Tee .. taking the injury sustained by the
” has awarded the flew sum with interest
the date ofclaim petition till payment.
\/
gut
-4-
4. We mam Sri. _
learned counsel for the appefiant
record.
5. Learned counsel raj: tIf1 e~ ‘
contend that on the face
record, the appellanthas
disability and the mam *j1.1s1:2fied’ in not
awa1’dv:*1g.y- permanent disability,
ms {mu m,«nme loss dmmg laid ofi’ period.
Learned that the Tribunal has erred
aiwaliiirlg …. compensation for the navel
appellant by engaging the Taxi wifich
is Ex.P-280 to Ex.P319 (40 mmbers).
counsel contended that the compensation
under me rema1ning’ heads, in the facts and
‘ ofthe case and the evidence on record, is
meager and is on a lower side. According to the
..7_
working as a Marketing Agent and
Rs.3,900/- pm’ month as not supported Z _
has held that, the disability
as permanent, since the petitiprxef Ly
age and by undt-.rgosing the
appellant can a
9. 19, it came:
be said hacgfibm mm regam to
the head “conveyance
expendngue” said bills have hm; rightly
dojghtegd A perusal of the bills shew
% %%a9peuan£ has anegealy hired Taxi to attend
I . The bills show the places of visit, the
hfirisit, the @3011 visited etc., which are mo-At
.. The bills have been obtained only to make the
‘ : and are not one issued by the regular course of
” business. Hence, the clahn made by ¥hc\’appellant -for
-3-
awarding of Rs.32,155/- as conveyance
be granted. However, tamn’ g ‘ ‘ t
that the appellant has taken
places, in our view, he
additional sum of Rs.5,G(:)f_)[§’ me mm
10. dité9;tii1§ty”éeIfificate issued to
the _ ‘said certificate shows
that there is &i€sgai§i1ity.t§f..35% simbred by the appenam
The ccrtlficau’ _, whether the disabflity is
sifhoié or for the lknb. In our view, the
‘ by the appefiant is for the injury
.’ the limb and hence, it has to be considered
is disability of about 10% only to the Whole
A The appellant admittedly was a student, the
.’ Vfdocument produced by him, namely, m.P~21 to show
that he was employed, is 9. tampered document. The
-9-
convenience of the appellant V
compensation msed on the ._
321, has not been proved»
examining the atzthoarg ‘evideixilee, tlm
appenam has stated ‘ :16 Air: part we
employmexlt, that the
appellant ” ~ time basis. Hence,
my-32 it cannot be held that
the appeyant and was drawing a salary of
Rs.I§.,9OAO/;-u.’Si11ce the appellant was a B.Sc.
. V’ hie to be taken on notional basis
‘~- annum. As there is disability of 10%
the appellant due to the injury sustained in
the eizeident, there is nednct1o’ n in his future w1’nmg’
V_ Hence, the appellant is entitled to be awarded
~–eompensalsion by taking his notional income at
Rs.15,000/- per annum. The mmfipiiw a%licabLe to
/
-19-
the appellant is 18 in terms of the decisionfi’
2000 I 4416,.’ em_ .
partial disability of. — vtiaultiplict’
and the national entitled to be
awarded uI:§€ier« fi;ie– “future loss of
izxoome/xis§1ug,¥::on m g mpacity”.
1; 4′ not produced any record
to showR’I’hi .amo_ ‘of the injury sustaixmd by him
accident on 21.6.2004, he could
course; that he could not take the
“and sustained loss. Appellant could have
established the loss, if any, sustained by him in
“ii able to continue his studies i.e., by producing
. V marks card of the academic year during which he
was The appellant has not produced any such
E.
N:
-11..
maternal’ and hence, it has to be held
suffered any 10% of academic ‘is d
be awarded any compensation.
of injuries sustained by tI1t~:”d§Vj;’:s:=.Ilaxv.1t’,’*
to awaui an additional mm inxdcr the
head “pain and appellant is
alsd entitled ‘fa;!:}’be:=._aWdfiiidd;V'”éin….ddditim1a1 sum of
Rs.3,000/hi-__ charges and
nourished tmammt and
mooupmcnt A ‘A dd ‘
gészdt, is allowed in part. In
passed by the Tribunal, the
da.ppenamd dis adagaed additioazal oompensamn’ of
i¥e;., in additional to Rs.96,000/– awarded
The additional/enlnnoed
‘A of Rs.40,00D/- shall carry interea at 6%
fiom the date of petition till payment. The
R
-12-
first respondent — Insurance Company _
with the liability to pay by the
respondent shall deposit the ‘
amount with interest in
period of three months _»
Offwe is award.
»