MFA 2€3239:'29(}8
IN THE HIGH comm-r or KARNATA:gA""' ' Q r.-
cmczrrr BENCH AT p§;5Rwg.r:" ~ iii V
DATED TI-H8 THE 20'"! BA'; or§'.A§i§t'¥1;*i*, ff-T :_
RENEE 'V _ V V. _
THE I-IOIPBLE nzR.Jus*:'Ic'é3'L}§_}n,1§AéAa;§>1%Ai§f§nAs
_r¢_!__I_§CELLA.l'i'§OU§ 2r112§f":f..gV Q
Between:
Rajesh, 2: ~
S/o Ashok Ne_a::;igaé1;_ar, 'V j _ .
Age:30 years;Occi"I?résé;3tIj,?'--NviI,'
R/0 -A;_,__ J _, V * "
B61331"-hyv 3. if '
' A.PPEI..LAHT
(By Sxi.R:£avi"1;?.I¥Ios:'z#.i§.=zAi;'
And:
V. I§§,'s.Vi§2fi§fa;2.and Roadlines Ltd.,
_ "Ac1m." "Vijaya Karnataka",
Gi1fira§Az1Iit:x, Circuit House Road,
"
'~ A 'flistzfikgfirwad 589 029.
-2. he"Neiv".VIndi'3L Assurance Company I,A:d.,
. Repméented by its Divisional Manager,
" * L.{;;1ub Read, Belgaum. RESPOHDEHTS
Sri}fianumaa:t Raddy Sahukar, Adv for R1,
' F8:-i.Ravi Gfiahhahit, Adv for KB)
This appeal is filzd under Section 1'73 (1) of MV Act
[against the judgmeat and E-I{W8Ji'd dated 07.01.2008 passed in
MVC Nc}.15{31/2005 on the file of the £1 Addl. Civil Judge
ri7LV""~'
\M.-'
'MFA 2023952008
2
(Sr.E)n.) and Add]. MAC'I'., Be1gaum., partly allowing the-claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhance;:;i£:;;1iT.. of
compensation. * "
This appeal coming on for admission, this «say, '
deiivered the following:
Jtmeusmf
1.
This is a claimanfs appgal A’ L»
inadaquacy of compensation by in its
order dated 07.01.2008 :\5.v.c;’1\:’ez; i$dVi;!gso5.”
2. On the date of accident;_ aged about 27
years 3 had rightly taken the
multiplief’.-r)f; 1’7} contends that on the date of
accident, he was’ wo’:1€i11g”a’s a painter. But no evidence is
if earning per day is taken at
fRSJ;1O0f1~* income will be at Rs.3,0/00/–. The
an emur in taking the msnthiy imzome of
‘:31: clhim… Rs.2,400/~. PW–2 the dmtor deposed befem
fie” cagxtvwihat the claimant sustajneé injtuies of fracture of
.J.A[«”bt$t.’g1’bh{%nes on left lower limb. The doctor deposmi that the
j sufibred disability of the ieft lower limb to an extent of
n u V 4&1). ‘¥’hc éoctor further sclepeseé that the claimant has to walk
-;f”7L’:”-*””‘
MFA 292393068
3
with fine heip of a crutch and that there is shortening of lower
limb and there is rcstrictiorr. of ankle and knee movea3eni3:.”T.}n
the cixcumstances, the functiona} disability t8.kt”:’.I3_._ jét’ ”
thc ‘I’ribu:aal appears to be on lower side. Having.
nature of injuxits sustained by the fine”:
of disability and xzaturc of work,’ Ia am ‘the thaf;
functional disability of the Ezas to be’ 15%.
Therefoze, the c1aiman£’is_ _ comfiiénéafion of
Rs.91,800 (300ox:2x:7×15/-:A9_0′}’,”7′
3. Unilcr giifv-.a1;:1e’nities’, the Tribunal has not
awarded View of the law “lafid down by
vthis MURTHY VS. THE MANAGER,
1”._M]S..;§’R!§§¥fF§b«._._INSUf§AN(3E 00., um, BANGALORE AND
AI”i(.j£-%’}”{VIi§iQ::Vi(‘iIg¥2e ‘:>;e(‘:é~4 KAR 2471), it is obligatory on the part of
Z the awa;rd compensation under the head ‘Z033 cf
‘«fiin§:nifie;é.’,fiéhen ciaimaxzt has sustmned injuries. In the facts
.ci:£:umstances of this case, I am of the opinion that
is erxtitled for another sum of Rs. 10,000/~ under the
:.he3di:13,g ‘£033 of amenities in life’.
;73\§j'”‘\:”‘*”‘
MFA 2€}239.«’2(}08
4
4. For the: masens stated above, the apgcal is partiy
allowed The impugned order dated in
M.V.C.No.1501/2005 is medified c,~nhancing_;””x:};;;*_ ..’._jft;:»g;;fi’A
C(}I3l1§}€Z1Sati0I1 to Rs. },81,4()()/ ~» in place 01″ R3. In –.
other aspects, the impugned award ‘
ulildiatllrbed.
Jm/ -»