IN 'rm; HIGH Comm 0:? KARNATAKA AT BAN£}5§§{)i§E.V:"'« V.
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER H
PRESENT'
me: HONBLE MR.JusTIcE';'QEE§5AK V::£eMA. "
THE HON'BLE MR.JU3P,i3§3-EuK,..RAMAN~NA"V2
M.F.A;1¢Q%.30:37/2or;;§j.
B TWEEN:
PYAREJAN
szo HUSSAJIN-SAB, "£2: '
40 YEARS, _
R/OASARM'OHAL1.P.¢"'A.< __
CHITRADURGA ...APF'ELLAN'I'S
{By Sr;/Smt ; :{HA.a E"1é. ADV.)
i'4v!:'CivL'~§iVrv¥Vl}Df;}IN
. '-45 YEAR-S,T1=S/O MLLKHADAR
Rxo-P403559,
'aamuze ROAD
DAVANGERE
% v~1.'2A. I 'FEE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE co LTD
FJARASHJHARAJA ROAD
DAVANGERE 5?? 001
" W3" THIRU K R;%.MESH
58 YEARS
81' C} KR£SHNAPILLAI
ISTH LANE STREET
NAMAKKAL
cfiw .~ <
4 UNITED Ii'~IDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
BRANCH OFFICE
N035, SALEM ROAD 1
NAMAKKAL 637001 RESPONDE-_P5'T(_S%.v
{By Sn'! Sm: : AKRAM PASHA, ADV. FOR R3. SR1 R.JA§_fi5RA»§?f£x*$_H;-. A.
ADV. FOR R-2 AND SR1 SVHEGDE MULKHAND, ADV,__ FORE"-4) --
iiiiiii _:
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 1?3£1);"§3F;l9iV:'A§i1'§f»A(§fiJf§f§'F--.A'l'§£E
JUDGMENT AND AWARD I3A'£'ED:1S.7V_O3' _ PAS$§EI) 'IN
NO. 1433/94 ON THE F}LE OF 'I'}?'E PRL. CWILJUDTf3E {SR,VDN.§ AND, V *
ABDL. MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY IKLLOWING 'FHECLAIM PETTFION
ma COMPENSATION Ania SEEKING Etmgucmmm on
COMPENSTION.
THIS APPEAL BEING : RESER§fEi5"' -GOMING on FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF' JUDGMENT' Trizs KRAMANNA J.,
nguvmzsn ms F'CVLLOWl:NG;». * W "
This 'S . by the injured clam)' ant
chaflejgiging jfidgmmt and awam dated 15/7/2003
% Civil Judge {Sr.DI1.} and Addl. MACT,
and whereunder, a sum of Rs.22,275/-
has éfirmfied as compensation to the appellant
V' V' interest at 9% pa. finm the date of petition
ofreal1'sati0n.
2. The appeliant not being satisfied with the
quantum of compensation awarded by the
come up with this appeal under Section
Vehicles Act, 1988, contending ..
under various heads is very low. :1: 'A
3. Heard the mgumgnts of. ti1e "co'u1*isc5i*..L
appearing on both sides and H
The '0f"the& are that on 10/ 6/ 1994
at abouf. «the 313931139'/P6331'-1093? W85
travefliug Ch1't:radurga to Bangalore, the
drove the same in a rash and
and dashed against the lorry,
coris.=:_Vc1u¢§1'1t:tjz§'.VhppeIla11t sustain' ed grievous injumes' and
E
right pubic rami, thmeby incurred huge
A for medical treament and sustained loss of
inaéome and also sustained permanent disability. Hence,
he filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5
5. To prove his case, he examined hknsclf as.--£?.W.l
and also examined the doctor, who
certificate as P.W.2 and got marked m%jatmmm¢s
Exs.P.l to R29. The mm
material evidence placed harem %
petition in part awarding ' '
6. Admittedly, quesiziéfivy occurred
due to rash rtegligenfj' ' of the has by its
driver. A cm A :1;-%¢1~:sna%j[:zo.79;94 also came to be filed
again' stthe s ' bus, the documaits Exs.P. 1
'ta, tfieafly that the accident in qtwstion
to the rash and negligent act of the
of bus and ttm same is not mud} more in
'"= §ii!:sp11tt§ flefore 118. Further, the liability of respondent
2- pay the compensation amount is else not disputed
T .. ” before us.
7. According to the appellant, he is a
copper utensils manufacturer earning 3
and he had spent around Rs.:i(‘3,’0O0_/Q-_ V»
towands medical expenses. _ .
considering the nature of
suffered and the by he was
an inpatient for about J follow up
treatment neg:zriy;_:V1’for fig a sum of
Rs. which in our View
is just not require any enhancement.
However “in not awarding any amount
V’ heagl amenities’, thus we award a sum of
the said had.
on the basis of the medical
to 16 produced before it, awarded a sum of
~ towards medical expenws of the appellant.
fe “fioiwever, the Tribunal failed to eoneider the hidden
‘ ” expenses that the appellant would have incurred fin’ which
no receipt couid be secured, as sud} We award Rs. 1,500/–
under the said head and Rs.1,000/- towards coneegfegace
and nourishment charges.
9. Further though the appell_;a11t__clai:1is’ A
earnmg Rs.-4,(}OO/~» per month
some before the Tribunal. L’
Ex.P.26 to prove his incoxxgxeflbut’ not 9.
conclusive proof to deteiiofine’ the appellant,
since to have been doing business
on his owko,” rm” have produced some more
, documents to prove___1;ie income. However considering the
of the case, a notionai amount of
F§s’;;fi,”E’>'()(v) / as income of appellant per month and
{he xawanied towards his loss of earnings during
‘ iip period.
10. Though the doctor/P.W.2 had deposed before
° oioo * that appellant sufiered disability of 20% disabflity of
his whole body, the Tribunal erred in not awarding any
FE
amount under the head ‘future loss of income’.
Considering the injuries sustained and the ampinty
suffered by the appellant, we are of the
appellant must have sustained V’ fWhele” *
body. Accomingly, considering
aged 30 years as on the dats3V__vdf….Vaoc2ibtieV1:1’t, L’
proper multiplier of fm: to
compensation of Rs.28,8{5()–/§’– _%x 6% x 12 x 16 =
Rs.34,56o/3)’ b2*«efut:.1.?~4s:e ‘ s. Thus, in all
appellant is en’i§tlecl– of Rs.63,800l-.
1 For the reasons, appeal is allowed in
awand passed by the Tribunal is
is entitled to enhanced
Rs.41,525/- with interest at 6% pa.
«date of petition till the date of deposit apart fmm
Afagzneunt awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent
4: Insurance Company shall deposit the said amount
V:-uwithixl 4 weeks fium today. Respondent No.2 to bear the
cost of litigation through out. Oounse-l’s
Rs.3,000/–, ireemfied. &
*MV8 ——– _