IN THE HIGH COU¥lT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BE NCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23*" DAY or-* JULY, %2§09 j ' = BEFORE THE 2-4oN'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.~_.~A¢AmmAuA;c;'~%[A% M1scEu..ANgogs FIRST mg-»_L N<5.as47,:; g;3%(VMy)'A BETWEEN: SANJEEVAKUMAR YAMANAPPA TALAVJAR % A k AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, om: DRNER'8£x } AGRICULTURE, R/c:_:<aLAvx % % TALUK: csoKAK,fms:r:5ELcs1au'M. * :APPELLANT (av sax JAQ-A9155 s.s. HATTIKATAGI, ADVS.) AND: ' 2 V HISSRIVPANI ViTHA.i,___BALEKUNDRI .AcsED'a1A3-QR, occ: owner: OF TRUCK » ssAn:re:3«mc,MM _KA.31/2413 we TE'RAGAQ.£*i, TALUK: HALYAL * iD'i=1'~§T: i., KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELGAUM. :RESPONDENT'S
(EY SR1 LAXMAN B. MANNODDAR, ADV. FOR R2;
SR1 SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R3;
SR1 M.Y. KATAGI, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS APPEAL is man unoea semen 1?235′(‘1}9..’_’g’:;?!:ffV’:.T:!:f-§E_
M.V. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWAR_D__1i9T3.’£’18J’
PASSED IN we 246.2356/zoos ON:-THE-F§L’_E QFT%T::+ETA9b;.. 5
cxvza. sum.-:2 (SR. om.) & MA.CT,’_’_’TT~’GOi<A3(;'
ENHANCE§IEENT~é.§§?' c5Tr;PENTs_ATIar§;T"~
THIS AP?£AL, Ct)_M'£Vl:\lG. #03 ADMISSION Tms mv, Ti-IE
{ZOURTV QE'LE.VERE£' FGLLOWING:
– _ _ ;UE>GMENI
‘– sri.’ :..a:~arr:a:ys. Mannoddar, learned counsefi undertakes to
file pev§ér.. Tfeépendant N92.
w*v
‘
2. This is a claimant’s appeal being aggr~is¥ec*’..’._jif§~’;_:Vthe
inadequacy of the compensation awarded by , i’.Goi§ai<,,'
in its Award dated 19.03.93 in we n;§.28£56/most
3. The grievance of tn§””cViaimant is that
heading “future toss of income:,.onf»account ‘of…dis-:§biiity”, no
compensation is awarded tbs seen from the
record that in the accicientisuffered fracture
of left ankle, iat.a§ra’i injuries. Though
the evidancé’ ciaimant sustained
permanezf-_Pp’y.sicavi in respect of tower limb, no
surgery is con’ciL:ctod.:Vj._F§.i~rth’o’r itfis seen that claimant was aged
:_.«-about yaars anciV”‘ci=.a.nces of his recovery is more. Granting
aiobai” *Vcomj_3’ensa:ti–on of Rs.20,0GD/– under the heading
,A__r_”disat3iiii:y” the ends of justice.
2 The Tribunai has not granted any compensation
coma heading “£055 of amenities in fife”. It is obligatory on
}fi’i’zV£eMoart of the Tritéunai to grant compensation under this
4
heading having regard to the law deciared by the Division Eench
judgment of this Court in the case of K. NARASIMHA MUTRTHY
Vs. THE MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE co,:»«p.»;;u§»»t;3~o,,
BANGALORE AND ANOTHER reported in ma zopgiiiiixgantzéfziz.
another judgment in the case of i7 it
LTD. Vs. PAPAMMA AND ANOTHER tépsiitéd mht.~2tcie?~
Therefore, the claimant is e’rstiTti*ed tor._V_coi1ahAé.hV§a”tién oi’
Rs.15,000/- under the :iea’%dingit'”i;es;:tat’ aniéhitiéé. in life”.
Remaining all other asp§c.t$ ‘t§:i*ite:” Award is in
accordantie with =
5. _ F$r–«the rtaa_s6né’s’tiated abave, the following:
u ” is partly afiowed.
‘the impugned Award dated 19.63.03 in MVC
No.2866/O5 is medifieé enhancing the total
compensation ta Rs.80,0GO/-* in place of
R$.45,800/-.
{,,i\’g¥!”‘ss.–“/Y’