_ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-{ARWAD
DATED Tms THE 22nd DAY OF JANUAR§E_;"2'Qj_1_Q:5 _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE :V:»VJAC;};xNN;'K':§V"Ii+fV{vN:7"
M.F.A.No.20s35/2009*{MV) » , ' '
BETWEEN:
SI-IANMUKAPPA
s/0 YELLAPPA BENAKAMAVAE2, V --«
AGE:28 YEARS, - \_ .
oCc:ADv0cA'rE
R/O YALIWAL _
'i'ALUK:KUNDAG£)LA3.' _ 2
DIST:DI-IARWAD;" A A APPELLANT
(By S;'1l.S¢1'vI';'I*;ei1V.1;*\"a;f'.2;~1c.i:',: "
1. MALLEKARJUN_ . _
Sm FAKKLRAPPA KUNDAGOL
.AGI3:AMAJOE€,w--..A ,
. -o'c<:;:owmER OP""EvI'OTOR
. 'v,CYCLVI-'{3 BEARING REG.NO.KA~25/V-9141,
_R','A.O"¥ALIWAL, 'I'ALUK;KUNDAGOL
" ._ LJ;s'T:D~H_A1§VVAD.
H VV 2. 'FHE--.. C) RvI'ENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
VIKAS COMPLEX, STATION RAOD,
*_x,HUBM, %
" REP. BY ITS MANAGER. RESPONDENTS
‘ V’ …, ( By’%3ri.M.K.S0udagar, Adv. for R2,
Sri.M.I-I.Ujjammanavar, Adv for R1)
This appeal is filed u/s 173 (1) of MV Act again.st’«._tne
judgment and award dated 14.07.2008 pas~s~ed&’t.__”t’v’lif\’.C
No.21′?/2006 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge? (Sr.’Dn.—-)
Addl. MACT, l-Iubli, partly allowing the clairn “pet’it_i’on for» _&
compensation and seeking enhancerne_nt.o_f corr_1peri’sation,v .
This appeal coming on for hea:1r.ing;;_”this'”d_ay::”‘thié icotirti
delivered the following: T.
JUDGM§§1W
Heard the learned vcounselflfor ‘-the_’fpa.rties respect of
the appeal preferred by the claiinantv seeZkirigl_e.nhancement of
compensation.
2. SriV,S’.M’.Kalwad:,:?-I “*leiar,ned «counsel for the appellant
submits the is an advocate by profession
sustained injuries in t_he3_rno..tor accident which was in the form
injT_iI53.r the left”‘hu_rnevrus and fracture of the distal radius.
i.7Referring~tVo’~thei”said injury and the disability put at 20% for
thellhpperfi the doctor, appellant counsel sought for
‘enhanceniient. under the head loss of future earning capacity.
r the other hand, Sri.Soudagar, learned counsel for the
tjilinsurance Company argued that there is no evidence that the
M’
L…»
appellant gave up his practice after the injuries or there is any
evidence indicating loss of income from the professiorfiand
moreover no evidence is there to say that the appe1i14aiitp:”had.5′ .
surrendered his sanad to the Bar;CVouncil_–“giir’i.ri1’g. i”up”,his
practice. Therefore, the award arnountréis and reasona”o1«e’::1;_’
4. Having thus heard bothsid’e.s_ and of: the ” it
evidence on record and the disabi1i.t3ir:Arnentioned”bytheiidoctor, I
am of the View that amounted’ arnenities should
have been awardedtand thi’s”is i1c;:1′;;;1a.;§:i_t1g%i-ii”.eirfiés’:15,000 /–. The
said amount Award is modified
by allowing in ” it i
Sd/-
Iudge