Sapana vs Mohammad Ali Mohamad Hussaisab on 29 September, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 29m DAY OF SEPTEMBER,'4:gZO:ir:4C}'« N

BEFORE

'i'1~£I33 HONBLE MRJUSTICE.JV,,JAGA~NN;¥}'fH2§;NV"_   C'
M.F.A. No.15569/300:7 [mm '   '   C ' _ 5

BETWEEN:

Sapana

Aged 3 1/2 years

D/0 Ratansingh Rathod _ .
Since Minor represented by.a.he.r%  
Natural Guardian .Father-~ .  V =
Ratansingh Rat_hc~d_  I I ,.

Occ: Road c0n_S}i,ru¢:§t'ion..Work_

R/0 Devoor   ,   ;
L.T.No.} irr__SiI':da--gi.;_:Tg1Iu_}{;  ~
Bijapur     

...APPELLANT
[By Smt.I§{atr;<a  Advocate)

 J V1";-. Mairiiaxijamadé Ali CVI\C/{{)'h'ammad Hussainsab
   

Owraer of, _e " tru
Bearing No'.K'A 3:2/3837

  R/0: t3§14_5,~B§ankatCI1e1xv}

'Shahabad' .11'; Chittapur Talu ka

"  I C" --G'u1nbarga1-Dist1'ict,.

._  2; -..'I"h.:2.Orierriiai I1'1_s1,:ranee Co. Ltd.
 __ "}EJijapL1r,
_ C 'Re.pr@se11ai:ed by its
" _ "Bran(:h Manager



ta)

3. Vijay Appasaheb Patil

Aged 42 years.

Oeez Owner 0fTata Sumo
NO.MH-09/4842

R/0: Chinehwad in Karveer
Taiuk of Kolhapur District.
Ma.ha1~asht.ra State

4. Nationai Insuz"a.n_ee Co. Ltd.
Bijaptir,

Represented by its

Branch Manager  . Vt  ,..V.  V

(By Shri.Sanjay Z\/I.J0shi'} 'Ad\Iov(ieitedVe.fQruV'dR¢2.
Shri.C.S.Ka1burgi, Advocate    

MFA filed u;'--'s 173m of I\/iV"».A(:t:Vv_ag*aii*1st the Judgment
and Award dated'«.I?~1~.09_.2Q0?:' p«aSs[edV_in'MVC No.e28/2005
on the fiie of  1'/£;ACT~I\{«--. Etiapnf. partiy allowing the
claim petition fQ1*"edIn--;rseii;~9§a '.0:1A.an'-d 'seeking enhancement of

compensettion.' 

Thi:;«3._1\k1If-'A'  for orders, this day, the Court
delivered th_e'fol10win.g: S *  "

 --.ziI1)GMEN'r

    disposed of finaiiy after hearing the

1e;1_1"ned Cdu.nse1vft)1' the parties.

"  '1*h.e Compensation awarded in respect of the

' :.e..12i1;id1t1~::tAI1t: aged 11/2 years. is called in question by the





L).J

e1aima.nt~Sapna on the ground that the eompensat.ion

awarded is Inadequate.

3. T he 1ea1"1'1ed counsel for the 

ShivaY0§?;imat:h, submitted that _t}.1'3_ c:1'"?zi'rii2':--ti1*:,'V"ivasV 

petitioner in MVC 628/2005 and  

to 25% and MACT did not 'ayirawird ad.e'quateb.:'eoin.pen3sat1e--n"

towards disability or towarde____u1'ess~__of hainenities of life.
Therefore enhancement isieotight,Vlafiiefeirring to the medical
evidence of PWW 15;r)r.oe.AB.'paitanash¢ft: '  

4». 0n*'theLpaZ'other hand;'<wthe"-learned counsel for the

Ensuranee (;'.on1pa.n'y-.e.Sflféanjay M.Joshi submitted that in

the wound'Qeevrtitieate"  EX.P--}4 injuries have been

-"~men_t_,io~ned  sin1"plr:%..iri nature. But however only when the

.V'eertVit'1eat'e.4:_of;'dieability was obtained in the year 2006 from

PWJS; t'raeti;'1__re has been mentioned and therefore it is not

 'I<._noWn,~~whethe1' the fracture was caused in the accident in

  "qi".1est,i"o;n or subsequent: to the aeeident. Under these



rv



Circumstances. c0mper1sat.i0n awarded by the 'E'ri.bunal is

just and reasonable.

5. '.E'akir1g nate of the above siibmissicyri_and,acet1dent.* 

not being in dispute, the liability ;j5nwtl'xe '_p'~{:11'l.;'Q:f' "the 'se(:dndlf'

respondent Insurance Company also "being  in d'is'pn'£,eV,

the wound Certificate at Ex.P~ at
and all the injuries are iniiiriesvtvl However.
after one year the Docterg and put
the disability ‘thdxyhole body. Under
the above is some force in the
veounsel for the Insurance

Companydlethaty thelti;actii~re”1iiight not have occurred on the

ae(:ot1;1’t”e-f the accidental injuries.

V “note of the evidence on record, in my View

eompensatioijvlcan be increased under the head ‘loss of

.,_”aymer1it.i~es”;.by ?15,000/~ and on the other heads no increase

waryrzimed. T1111-s enhancement of ?’15.000/– shall carry

€°’:

K :

fie?

iriierest, at 6% p.21. from the date of £1116 claim petition.

Award amoLmt is accordingly modified.

Appeal is allowed. Liabiiity is fasteried Q;ii'”t.h.£é’

responderit.-Insurance Company.

SBN/SRT