IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CiRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED Tms THE 20TH DAY OF SEP’FEMB_ETR,’ _
BEFO RE
THE HON’BLI£ MR.JUsT1C1?. V;JA%3AN§J.ATHAw_% . [ i’
M.F.A.No.1359§ o1=~’*2(j07 (MVj5 2
B EIVVEEN
SHARANAPPA S/O ANNAPPA _
AGE 55 YEARS. occ: COOLEE. *
R/O VADDARAGALL: T
BRAHMAPUR LOC.AL1″i’Y .
GULBARGA DIS’I’RIC_’I’
GULBARGA~58’5 _ . =
{BY SRI R S S1Ei_I:-LAP1fR}£IXR:.’:
AND
1′ SE-:’:’VA_I.1NGA*i2PA
S/Ov._BASANNA”P £L’?AE\EUR
AGED*–.ABOU’I’~_40.YEARS
; ‘ace: OW}.\¥ER’OF MAXI CA8
» ‘ B13:-,R:NG NO.,E_{A~32 /448}
R;/0 SEIAHABAQD’
_ ‘1fA1.,U-K: *€;HI’I”‘1’APUR
‘ ‘ . :)*z5’1′.». (3I__H;§3ARGA
:\:::éA¥:é:j_.I-xi’-1Az\/£131) s/0 RUKNUDDIN
YEARS, occ: DRNER
“R/0 I~-1.No.25–38
NIZAR RA1 LWAY GATE
4_ SHAHABAD
TALUK: CI~1I’Fi’APUR
1313:’: GULBARGA
. ..APPELLANT
THE DIVIS1ONAL MANAGER
ORIEZNTAL INSURANCE CO. um.
D1visiONAL OFFICE
OPP: MINI ViDHANA SOUDI-{A
MAiN ROAD, GULBARGAA585 :02 ~ ‘ ” 3
[£335 SRI SANJAY M JOSHI, ADV. FOR R3, O’ — . A a
122 SERVEI), R1. :x’ O’r1cf£<: DISPENSED wfifiiii
mxs i'v'ii~'A IS FELEZD Uys 1'?3(j.; ,Ar3fi"*AGA:-1s{s=;vi'mE
JUDGMEJNT.' AND AWARD DATE-I): 23.5.2007 PASSED s=N'M'vc:'NO.
2024/2005 ON THE $11.3 OF THE. ._PR1i. CIVIL Ji1fp'O.ji:-.{si;..ON) AND
MACT. GULBARGA, PARTLY A1J1;Ow'iNG THE2_C'Lj-\,IM "9E'1'1T1ON FOR
COi\/IPENSATEON AND sa:.Ei§:NG»V.._» ENHANCEMENT OF
CCDMPENSATION. it 'A
This appea} is C01j1V_ii.'ig_ fin" -i'ir1é1}[_i§.e:11*ing, this day, the
Court delivered _th<3_, fO1I:Owi"rig:&:
to the appellant by the
M.A.C";T in /»~ is ealied in question by the
eippellanti that the said compensation is on
J " _ t.}¢;':"?j3""iio?t5[§i1' ._Sic1e., ' ….. .. <
_ é/§Lpg)e11ant's counsel submits that, t.he appellant
was a 1fl1]:1e1″11eci. The facts eomremiifig the manner Of accident
?and the driver Of the Maxi Cab had fault. not in dispute.
%
-in
-3-
Re.ge1rdi1’1g the (‘.()IT]})C1’1_’:’»’c1ii()I1, ii. is argued by her, that the
deeeatsed was .21 c’,(‘)()lie zmcl earning $4.000/~ per month.
The disability ta1<;e1'1 by the Tribunal at 10%, which is on
the iower side. She referred to the deformities by
the appellaiit by ii'1ci'1ea1.ing the eviden*ee'4A"o:f['L:'—
examined PW–2. Therefore.
:3. On the other hand,
M Jo,=.s1’1i for the 31″
Compamy submitted ,..ih2it ijiteiifioriipeneaition ziwarded by
the Tl’ibL11’l2E1 is jusitfb .–‘Ei.1V’1’d :i’eaSCi_r*i¢ab?c. requiring no
e1111an:?en_1ei1i.’–” _ ‘V *
A2. °’£-~iz;i\:iIf1§.§ A1:.}11V’:~~;.~f;’ heard both sides, so far as
azrciitjiéiegiég ;;m(‘.1 the””‘ii2ibi}it’y are concerned there being no
___tiis15L:i:e.._atheuoniy area to be examined regarding income of
tilt?’E1p;.)!;?.1i!£1i_.1i’O1] the per(:ei’1i;age of disability. income taken
by the,j!:3?1’ib1,i11ai was $80/– per day as Coolie, which is on
:i.;)\>ve.1′ sicie, it 5.1101116} be takeri at ?’100/~» per day as far
.V (fiiS2’L§)iIiI.y is eo1’1eemeci, it is i’ake1’1 at 10%. in View of the
}:,i
i4_
cio’viie.r_¢asi§ the doctor
evidence reveals that’ the got difficulty in
}ii”i.i1’1g~’i.veig,hii, Iieftf’-up1i3*ei”‘* iirnb, there is also some
deio1’1i’ii.i.ies grip of left hand. In these
Ci1’eu_n1:~;te1nces, .1,1i1c’1e.r the head of ‘loss of future amenities’
a ‘Al’-‘:!’.1-.1S’.*_«IE-;'{;.’~’l’ si..1iri oi”e;J.:§'<«:s' 'v£ii?,}(i'§;E11t' given by the Tribunal is increased by
of $4,000/~. Thus the compensation gets
iiiréreéaseii over ali by 326,920/–. Said amount will carry
" _i';r1i_e_in?'(:.si' at ("(242 per a1:11:mm.
:'%
Er
. J'
Appeal is aliowed in modification of the award
21m0t,mt as above.
e §dr _
SR?’ /’ SE3