IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
BETWEEN:
DATED TENS THE 15" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2Q:G,:""R,
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MRJUSTICE JAWAQ..F2/3u.:H'IVE\?§:'A--E.::'
RAJANNA D.
S/O LATE DODDAGOwDAE1VAH,_
AGED ABOUT 34,.1YEARS,,-------- _ "
RESIDENCE AT: ' »
THYAGADOREPAL'rA,"
MADASALA HOBLI_,,__' V
MAGAD1.":TAEut<,;_' ' _ -
BANGALO Ru RAE ,D:ST'R1_CT *
" __.APPELLANT
{'EL'YA«S_F§I5 F2A\j},--'v.!u\J?;"\§/ . ,)
AND:
3,. 'NA_RASi'M_H m}RTHv,
_ S/O:-.NO'T KNOWN,
'AGE : :'v:A,3_OR
A RESIDING AT
"v._V'*S:E§,N"K;ADA THIMMAPPANAPALYA,
j~J§OR~A,A=TANGALA,
MAGAD1 TALUK,
"BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
3 THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
CCHUBB GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
.'}.H.D.F.C 3"' FLOOR,
EXPRESS TOWERS,
NAREMAN POINT,
M.F.A. NO. 9025/;:%oo7,,'LN,\:;,,
MUMBAI ~ 400 021
RESPONDENTS.-.___
(BY SR1 H.S.LIl\lGRAJU, ADv., FOR R2) ‘ ‘
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV AcT A;t;At:.’N~$_T
MDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30/O4/2oo–7:’_ “P.As_SED_’_1Ni’v.4_
MVC No.50/es ON THE FILE OF THE A£>~D-1.T__l’QN’AL ..C.Iv1t,
JUDGE (SRDN), MEMBER, ADE)L~.””lVi’ACT,–_4R/§\.M’Al\lAGiARAlf!l, ‘
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CALAIZMD Z P,E’i”I*E’IOl’=~l’iv.._ EUR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING’ ‘ENtiAi~ltjE.MEN’f’~«.’_’OE
COMPENSATION.
This appeal coming admis’s-ioin”:thie§ day, the
court delivered the follo.wing –.
ie Ni
This is_.Vcl~airtn_antfs’Haoeeajl”~ag,ainst«the judgment and
award in3’iVilLV{C.;§O}fiQ.S4-:_4iel__ated”*”_3tO.4_2007 on the file of
Addl.lV1′.¢7\CT,_R§il”I’1é:lj3–gEl’l(a’m, se’e%<i.rl'g enha ncement.
2. l-iearéd, Cliain–9ta~ntA”s.tii’ife%ed injuries to his right foot in a
motor” vehicle. Aialccideht involving a Hero Honda motorcycle
hearingsnti;l«;A-o.2;§’EL»»9287. it is alleged that when the
:ai;i’peOflia’.nt.._OVsA[as.? walking, the motorcycle rider, by his
ne’-g_ligevh’t.Va~t:t, C§l’OV€ the vehicle in a rash and negligent
.Anjanne..r:’t:onsequent to which he suffered fracture of right
bone and foot. The big toe of the right foot was
m…fractured which required amputation. He claimed
@4\
‘..vJ
compensation of Rs.3,50,00D/».
3. The Tribunal considering the evidence on recoV:rd..fwyhi.ch
showed that he suffered 2o% physical disabil–i,ty eriftrv.-.?e”~:i5_’ot
and 10% to the whole body, grarit’etl—.Rs.?$7,_§3’OiC./’4-5 toy;arfd.s
loss of earning capacity, Rs.1E§,i16’2_/9f tow,ar’–d,s..
expenses, and Rs.1,500/- food ;:l.rfid’-.1n€>,Lj”risl’1″ment’,”V
without awarding any .~–a.moui:it”u.r*i_de’r”-»otherAhe.ad~s. Hence,
4. i am sa.tisf’}1ie»d’_,the,a\ivard ne.eds”reconsideration.
S. Thie-ev’i~d’en’c:e ..tenjde:red appellant shows he has
stsffered ihjuryvffvtofjt.,he.,,’rElg.ht–.foot consequent to which his big
toe had to»._b”e ‘The agony of pain suffered from
surg;ery’has t’o”—.be_ sounded in terms of money and he is
‘e3Vl”i”fltle.{tV.’tO.,r”R_S.40,C00/” towards pain and suffering.
Towards ATl”o..ss;f’of amenities and enjoyment of life due to
ain4f:ultat_io’n4’.o§ the toe, there is sufficient material on record
2 Awh—igh ‘shows he finds it very difficult to stand and even
Being an agriculturist by garofession, it hampers his
if wavocation and clegarives him of the amenities which he was
4
hitherto enjoying. Since disability is assessed at 20% and it
directiy affects his mobility and he has to live. it
impairment for the rest of his iife, I grant
towards loss of amenities. Towards medi_c~a–? he,
has produced bills for Rs.16,152):;- antiu’A.he’4’ius’:eyntitl’ed-ttosthle
same. Since injury was to thejeg, inci’dental”exp:ense;s .l’il<efl
attendant's charges, conveyaniceiyy entitled to
Rs.10,000/ -.
6. Towa AS. of i.4:lCbVtl7j’3<ed’ “co–u.ns’§el for the respondent»
insuralricel’ contends the multiplier
applicable’ci«–sV%l1.5.VV’I._ac.ce;>:t.’i’his proposition. Therefore, loss of
‘ll1(:’L)~l].”%Ev3il”i?iVE’> to “‘i3=9.,?_%_1_y|CU|ated based on physical disability at
‘2V0″U/Q t,QV’~t!ll’§..,,.!f_I.Tlb and 10% to the whole body. Since
‘agriculturieginazéolves manual labour, 20% will be the basis
ftiture ‘”loVssx.ol'” income. It gives us Rs.600/~ a month and
2 ARsi.–7n,2l)”‘O/– p.a. Multipiied by 15 multiplier, the total loss of
Z’incon’ie would be Rs.1,08,000/-. The appellant is also
it Wentitled to Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income during the
S
laid~up period of 3 months. This shall be the only
modification to the impugned award.
7. In the resuit, the appeai is aiEoweed~—.’_En.__’__i”;ja:Vrt..¢
Compensation is enhanced to Rs.2,23,16.2,[E»..Vas.:”afr3aifn’sft_e’V9*
Rs.75,000/~« granted by
compensation shall carry interest at’–E§% p.a,V.froo.n1fthé:
of petition till payrnerrt ;3ayab’i””e».,¢..ijy _theV”in_s{jia:i1cne,Company
within four weeks froreqthe dateto’f:.._ine’ee.i.pt of eopy of this
order. Rest ofthe déreeti.oris’__VVcont’a.ivn’eidv__ih the award are
affirmed.
vgh*