High Court Karnataka High Court

Somashekar S/O Rangegowda vs Sri Venkatesh S/O Jayamma on 6 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Somashekar S/O Rangegowda vs Sri Venkatesh S/O Jayamma on 6 June, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH CQURT ()1? KARNATAKA AT BANGAI'g{5R'E3.'V1----J: _ :  _

DATED THIS THE 6&1 DAY or gyms, zsasij   %
BEFORE '  1 * "   n' V
THE I-IOWBLE MR. JUSTICEVASEIOKVB,_"FIINCfiIC%#RI:.V  
M.F.A.No.11590[fif}«é$'      
BETWEEN:   _  

Somashckar,

S/oRangegoW<1a, _ __ .  .  
Mahadevarahaflivi1Iagc,i'jVA__--.'_ =    
Nagara11aIIiPost, 3:  '  . " 

Gentasi Hobli, "

Arasikcm Talfiik. " * 1 . 7i

 _ .     -- . ...APPELLANT
 .Smt..   £-'shgitagisuxttba, Advocate]

AND:

   ..... 

‘No.463,~Shiva§2ura,
N’c:1agavar’az3faj 115111’,
Peenya Induéirial Town,
Bangatpfe, V

{owner of*rcmpo No.30 2 14)

— The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
N652, Vinay Complex,
” VQV. Road, Basavanagudi,
” Bangalore.

RESPONDENTS
[By Sn’ RB. Raju, Acivocatse]

°m_1;s’fr;-ibuzssz, a ssmpsnssnzon of Rs. 1,21,515/—. Its break-

and agony Rs. 55,000-O0

‘ Loss offuturc incosss Rs. 38,400-00

This MFA is filed under ssctios 173(1) ofMV Act_.2§i§ain’st..th::__ _
judgment and awanti, dt.16.?’.2005 passed in MVC No;9_1[200i }on_ ‘
the file of the, Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gr» Add}. MACT,
allowing the claim petition for csomfiénsatiqvn ._ace1ci§:1g
cnhanccmcnt of compensation. ‘ .

This MFA is coming on ibr hcan –s’ss,fg_th:s%”easy, .(;6:;1i..;&eiivéred ” A
the following: _
magnum-‘ – Q

This appeal is directed 4’s’gs’sss¢s 3:11: and award,
dt. 15.07.2005 passed the ..Jfidga§:VV”(Sr.Dn.) 85 Add}.
MACT. AI’8SikCI’€. 1 . ‘

2. ThsV.si5:iefé;sf–t1ié.AV’oéuss’ “angina: in the mad traflic

accident, V’ the appellant sustained

the follcxwing isjsfiss: . s
V V. 3) cf shafi of right humerus,
amass .ss§os:£:f shaft of right ulna,

s ‘giisiscstaos of right mm head.

{ up isfasi fbflmws:

fl?}3fH.

iii) Future medical expenses Rs. 5,000-00

iv) Medical expenses

V) Conveyance, noufishxncnt ..* _
and attendant changes _ R9. * ‘

Total «

3. Smt.Sharadamba, eppellant
submits that the Tnbunal in the
determination of theetxfie loss of future
income. The ‘ §a;f9;;ei3ant’s income to he
Rs.1,50{)]- to Rs.18,000]-.
However the it as Rs.12.000/-. She
submits that theVV’€:ppe!};V5V1:1VjtVifis%§i’S’.::;in able bodied young man of so
at of Va-accident. Even assuming that he was

:v’13er.._day, his income comes to Rs.3,00G/- a

;nonth: ” A S1ui-, of inadequacy of amounts awarded

“‘1;:1dr:1f othe} 33¢-gas; ”

‘ 1»e.3g.em”it safe to take the appellant’s income to be 123.30/~

A’.V. ‘£3: (§£li§%’. Rs.2.400/—- a month. Applying the multiplier of 16,

‘T.__VaTs aged 30 years and taking the disabifity percentage at

fififii

2 iv)i\eI¢diQai Rs. 21,116~O()

20% as assessed by the doctor, the amounts
head of less offutum income are to be worked out as x ‘M 3 ‘–

2400 x 12 x 16 x ml mo = 92,16{“Im— .1 j; A AA

5. I also notice with concern t1V1at_11o ‘V 1
awarded towards the loss of amcniwéf» of V
the injuries and the m”bu1auo;-19,, has to
put up for the rest of his life, I just to awani
a sum of Rs.10,000/ ‘iofiffgizds

5. As the ‘§;»t1:§r heads are fair and
proper, the «’

7. New as follows:

1) and M ‘ Rs. 55.000410

income Rs. 92,160-00

expenses Rs. 5,000-O0

‘ * . “V1 Confieyeincc, nourishment
Aa11d_attendantcha1’ges Rs. 2,000-00

— ‘£558 of amenities Rs. 10,00D–~OO

Tfltfll RI. 1 585, 6″”m

-an–nu–u—–uu-uu–u–u-u-nun-uu-u-up
@