High Court Karnataka High Court

Revanasidda S/O Mallikarjun … vs The Divisional Controller on 11 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Revanasidda S/O Mallikarjun … vs The Divisional Controller on 11 November, 2008
Author: Ajit J Rahim
 

an puma ur KAKNAEAKA HIGH LUU--!!.§ or KAKNAEAKA I-stun Lguuxn or KARNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAXA HIGH -«

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

1:>AT1«:9 THIS THE 11m DAY 01? N0vEMBE;§*éc5aT[%,

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTI§3E"AJ1'1'  kk

THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTI_CE JAwA§ R;i:11'M 
M.F.A. No.2{;o::%;i%2oo5(M'v;% 

Between:

Revanasidda,     _  - 
S/O.IvIa1}ik3Ijun%,:  1 .      

Kalashetfys         .

Age: 30 years,   ;_   ..

Occ: At pr<:'s'eI2§Ni1, *2;   

R/().Tidagi1I§_di, ' :     . _'

Tq. & Dist":   Bflapm';  =      ...APPELLANT

(By sm£.%Rg:naV sr::v}ay:$gm1a:n, Adv. for
 "Evil./S.S1'1ix{;ayogi:nath Associates, Advs.)

The.  Cbfitroller,

   Mswc' central «';}fl'1c€r,

ffiear Bits Stand, Soiapur. ...RESPONDENT

” j ” ~ {By S’fi M.A.I{ak1″;andki and

u Sri.Shivakuma.r H.Mannur, Advs.)

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
“~…aga,irxst the judgment. and award dated 22.09.2004

passed in MVC N(>.879/O1 on the 1116 of the Member,
MAC’I’~–V1I, Principa} Civii Judge (Sr.Dim.) 825 GEM,
Bijapur, partly allowing the ciaim petition for

UH LUUK! OI-‘ KARNATAKA HIGH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIS!-{Cl

.4-

EXP78. A perusal of Ex.P78 wouid diseiose that the

salary ef the claimant was Rs.6,000/–. Indeed a.f’:{eeble

attempt is made by the ieamed counsel

the respondent to establish that any

has not spoken to about EX.P7

accept the said sL1b_missio:1″w- inaemileh O’

notwithstanding the fact ‘i.e&_”11ot .’i’;~;:.sued by
the Owner] PI'{)pI’i€3t0if..”‘;)f someone

responsibie has _ sp0ker1._to’-aieouit :i%;x ~ V ; ~

4. £1s:f:o Indeed having
regard ‘to’ firactieally a permanent
disabiliity’ £0′ _.90% of the entire body, we

take the .of.t1;1e»’C1é§imant at Rs.6,000/- per month

” _ arfi-,:,hg§fi1g his age at 28 years, the proper

to us would be 16. ‘Thus towards

ficmre earning, we deem it appropriate to

awwfifisum of Rs.11,:’32,00{)/{Rupees Eieven Lakhs 82,

,, , . “Two thousand).

5. ‘This takes us to the next issue regarding

compensation éetetmined under the various heads. In

w\\\\

~

so far as the pain and suffering, the learried member of
the Tribunal has awarded oniy Rs.7,0{)0/-, Vwhieh

accordilig to us is on the lower siée, having

the nature ef the injuries suffered by

ifideed a sufferer would ceItaif.:iij§5 “knee;
suffering, which he has te»V1;nc3efge:
In the case on hand, theiii
claimant is fracture fiecture of
Femur. Having regargt and aiso the
pain and has undergone,
we are of erehancement. It is no
doubtgtttiie cannot be quantified

but however,” eoviezf of time, the same is

dCtCI’II1:I}t’3d_ 133£7i1″]g! regaid to the nature of the injuries

Having regard to the nature of the

inj”m’i(‘%:s,.ii”the Vi6W that the elaimantwappellaxit

is eiiiiitjeciiifaif a sum of Rs.:’30,0{){)/–(Rupees Fifty

“tinder the heading of pain and sufiering. II}

_V .$ij0 ‘es towards fooci, nourishment, hospitaiisation,

“–«iesS’iof earraing durizig hospitalization ané other varicms

miniscuie heads illeluding medical expenses, we are of

5H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COQRI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO

can COURT op KARNATAKA HIGH cover or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cc

6:-

the View that a sum of Rs.15,(}OO/—(R’12peeS Fifteen

thousand) would be }’us1: and reasonable.

6. This takes us to the East head i.e., _
amenities. indeed future amenities e.2:*e– ~ V.
the ciaimant is unable to carry It-ie’e.tiau§I..to.’d’a4$;’

This being classified as loss of ta#I1e:’1it:iee” aeeit»

enjoyment of life moreott:ee.,:_’it.. t_ noticed
that the claimant-atipeilent. ,t_e be dependent
on others for it is noticed
that mg or treateti
as a parepie.#ie;;’1-I mean that he
is Bed. In this regard, the

compensation V”aWe;~c¥e:_£:1′ by the Tribune} requires

V. etifxexgeexnezlt. We deem it proper to award

.A ‘_’I§§§;5_0,000/~{Rupees Fifty thousazld) towards
Thus, the total compensation

awereeme to the claimant-appeliant towards injuries
geiferee is Rs.12,67,0(){)/-{Rupees Twelve lakhs e Sixty

Seven thousand) as against Rs.2,12,7€30/~–. Needless to

the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition.

.z
..-‘

./
_/

. c’:w”‘

say the enhanced eompensation shall carry interest at

* eeee

r l’\.P\l\I’I}-Ill-\l\l-\ nlurl ;.u;..m_u Ur KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 6? EARNATAKA HIGH cc

7. Indeed in this regard, we are requjied to make

an order in respect of the amount to be disbutts-ed in

favour of the claimant-appellant. Having

status of the claimant-appellant inasmnehu V

confined to bed/wheel chair deem 5:; A

sum of Rs. 10,00,000] -(Ru_pees”._V_;1′”‘en of

enhanced amount shall in a
Nationalised Bank’ interest. The
claimant-appellant the interest
accrued amount shall be
disbursed

to the extent indicated
aboven 4′ i it it

Vt ‘VParties'”at’eé directed to bear their own costs.

Judge

Sd/-.