High Court Karnataka High Court

Satyappa vs Sri Manohar on 25 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Satyappa vs Sri Manohar on 25 January, 2010
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGHMCOURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 25:11 DAY OF    H

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE,v'VIVJ'A!3AN2'JZXTHAN7~'h 

M.F.A.No.S260/2007  . I A '

BETWEEN:

SATYAPPA 
S /0 BHEERAPPA MADD1, _ 

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,  'A ,   

OCC:HAMALI (COOLIE) (Now''N_1L},'_ ;

R/O SALAI-IALL1, TALUK 1;:A'M'Dv1§R_GA'A»._, 
mST:13ELGAuM.:'      _   APPELLANT

(By Sri.San}a$i_S;:i§§'gfié1,c§eri.,:"25§::i'A,.)'A-'  
AND   , ' ,

1. SR1.MA~NOHAR RAMACHANDRA KALAKUNDRIKAR
AGED ABOUT. 40 YEARS,
Q§:(:;B.USINES_,S,
~ v.:R/~O;,_2,00.,_/6, RAD'?-EAKRISHNA MARG,
,' =_HINDWADL
 D£S'l':BE'.LGAUM.

  2.  bI\}A1'S1'bNAL MANAGER,

THE,._N1a:A.x;"'1ND1A ASSURANCE Co, LTD.,
CLUBROAD, BELGAUM.  RESPONDENTS

E Sfi,’N§.K.S0udagar, Adv. for R2,
“med;

E ” This appeal is med 11/3 173 (1) of MV Act against the

Ix.)

judgment and award dated 19.09.2006 passed in MVC
No.238-4/2003 on the file of H1 Additional Civil Judge, Sr’.l3n. 82;
Additional MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the clairnl,pe.titi.on

for compensation and seeking enhancement of comp¢e_n’sation.i’~ V

This appeal coming on for further orders,’l’t’riisjd.ajk,ltthe

court delivered the following:

Jvoemafirli

Heard the learned cotzriseh for the part_ies.:’ii.inally in-_”

respect of the appeal preferret-la by lclairrlant for
enhancement of compensation.’

2. Sri.Sanjay the appellant

submits that__ _Vtal<eni'lesselrl income and lower

percentage of awarding amount towards future
loss of earnj_ng_and_itha–t l_n–o_i"a;'ri1ount has been given towards

loss of; amenities of' 'l'ifei.l" this regard, appellant's counsel

.referre'ditol'ithe' evidencemon record and to that of the doctor who

certificate.

.3. iiOn t’ne’other hand, Sri.Soudagar, learned counsel for the

all’.””I3ft:SL1I’8,l’1CéHi Company submitted that the quantum of

__&tcoinpensation requires no enhancement under any of the

“riii i tdheads. wig”

Ln)

4. Taking note of the evidence on record, income could have

been taken at 1333.100/H» and disability at E5% to the xv%_1e1e'<–hG–dy

and consequently towards loss of future €aI"I1i1'1gS_,'\:'1I"1'1dL1fii;'u\fX}iii, =

new work out to Rs.97,200/– as against»_Rs.2_–9.;50'Gi[f':»~. given' by ii

the Tribunal. Therefore, under this, he-_jad,i the

increased by Rs.67,'700/–~. Todfaaids less 'oftarnienritiesmni" liifead

Rs.15,000/~ is awarded and cdtiapensafiion gets
enhanced by Rs.82,'700/ «':1I;V:'I2(3i.1.ii'~1_'V["v."\.xtir*i'1]"'CEiI"I'y interest at

6% pa. The appeaiis thus..a.l.iowed.

Jm/~