Sri B Yellappa vs Sri Budansab on 3 February, 2010

I
ix)
1

MFA FILED U/S l73[l] OF l\/IV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED E2.0l.2007 PASSED IN NIVC
i3JO.25G/2008 ON TEEE FIL-{C OF' ':'g'IEl\/IRE-R' EVIACI" 8: PRESI'DIE*IG

OFFICER. FAST TRACK COURT ~IlI. RAICHUR. --«PA.R'_I'L'{_
AIILOWING THE CLAIM PEHITION FOR COMPENSATl'IQl§I..Al\Ij{) '' 

SEEKING ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.  I "  ,

This MFA coming on for hearing' this day,"-.l:thel"VCourE'.o:A  

delivered the following:

Jvneuewrl

This appeal is  the 'elaimantlseeking
enhancement of  'by.l"l*:bhallenging the
judgment   C No.250 / 2006

dated        Ikaichur.
  of the case are that, on

l.5.2_0(_)5,  V_elai;*:1a:::_t Yellappa along with Abdul Mafid

-' v ,.uwerelp1%.or:eedingHfro'i'i1IManvi to Raiehur on Motor Cycle

 and Abdul Majid was riding

the'--~..rnotor:tiyole and Yellappa was the pillion rider. At

 wleboutll pm. when they were near 7111 mile cross of

I  Raiel'1ur -- Lingasugur road, 181 respondent drove the

  ~~-tempo trax bearing No.KA--36/M-866 from Raichur side

 from the opposite direction and dashed against the
motor Cycle. Conteending that he had suffered

2%-

:1»



perrlianent disability on aceotlnt. of the accidental

injuries, the claimant Yeliapag filed the claim 

seeking compensation on various heads.

3. On service of notice, the~.»insurance'-:coii'i~petnyt.v 
appeared and contested the matter. 

rivai pleadings, the tribunaiifreirned the  * L'

for its consideration: 

[U

"U  

(iii)

Whether the  due to rash
and   KA--36 A/I-866
  of the motorcycle
by..:£;?Ivqir}§3i;ifzts'~tr:t;r1sé§f"c5r"eoth?

  had driving licence?

\rVheVther* ciainiants had SL§[f€T€d injuries in the

E  ' said accident?

 claimants are entitled for

'-cempensation? If so, how much and from

. who m?

 TV)

'What order or award?

4. in support of his case, claimant examined

himself as

PW1 and one Dr.Harish Murthy  PW3 and

Si
X',



   

_ 4 AL
Abdul Majid as PW2 and got marked exhibits P1 to P14,

while t.he respondents let in evidence of RW1. On the
basis of the material on record, the tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.73,000/~, but however, deducted

50% of the aforesaid compensation on the grourid.l:'tha--t'

Abdul Majid, rider of the vehicle on which   *

was pillion rider had contributed~'t'o the   it

thereby a sum of Rs.36,500/-- only__  inteAre~sVt 

rate of 6% per annum was awarded. Beingaggiiielfied by V

the said judgment arid./._awar.dl, has preferred

this ap_peal§' w _ Raf' 3
 pl  counsel for the appellant
and , learned ._:Vcou'ns"el 'Thor the respondent/ insurance

 'contended on behalf of the appellant that

the"««..tribuna~1lwas not right in deducting 50% of the

._c..o7<nperis.ation in the compensation awarded towards

ll  "contributory negligence of the rider of the vehicle when

  fact, the claimant was neither the rider nor the owner

of the vehicle, but he was a pilliori rider. He further
contends that the award of compensation on various

*2»

,.y-



heads are on the lower side and that no award has been

made on the head 'loss of future earning capaci_t.y'l_i»~a:n.d

therefore, this is a fit case where Compensa.tir§)_nl'hVas.. _

be enhanced.   

7. Per contra, supporting 

award, counsel for the insuran;(:eV_co1npaIiyVVsiulhrn1vts..that
the same does not eall  'i'nter.f.erer1._ee_ޤin this
appeal. A l V l
8. Hav11}g.}lc:ard on both the
sides, the   Wconsideration:
{il    justified in deducting
  awarded to the
 ground that the rider of the
   which claimant was proceeding
V '  rider was negligent?
dfii) ,.__v'Whlether the claimant is entitled to additional

 Compensation'?

  From the material on record it is evident that

   tribunal has held that the rider of the motor cycle

namely Abdul Majid and the driver of the tempo trax

bearing No.KA--36/M-866 were equally negligent in
as



M6-

contributing to the accident, therefore, negligence has

been apportioried 50% on them. However, the 

failed to notice that the claimant/ appellant  _

rider. Therefore, merely because he...was the"pillion;=ride1i_ 

and did not in any way contribL1te'1.to1th*e 11eg1i'ge'1:ce,l'0'thef.i

tribunal could not hatred-.,::de_ducAt'ed  
compensation awardedgto  reaso,11,,,.that he
was proceeding as a  motor cycle.
Therefore,  dfeducting 50% of
the compeIi§slati'0._n' lbfiélllvrexiersed in this appeal
and   lis_lla"r1swered in favour of the

appellant,' *

,1-0. As faras th-e compensation is concerned, it is

l"seVe'r1lEff*o1r1f._'theHl ttttt "material on record that the

 had sustained fracture of shaft of

feniur   thigh, he was admitted to Bhandari

0' _ai1o,spital'"at Raichur where he was in the hospital for

.0  about three months and he underwent surgery and nail

 ""vVas inserted. Dr.Harish Murthy has stated that there

is non union of the bones and he underwent another

surgery on 31.1.2000 and that he has been in
'1?



_9_

(1) Pain 8: suffering: Rs.35,000
(ii) Disability : Rs.50,000
{"1} Medical expenses : Rs.35,000
[iv] Incidental charges: Rs.20,000
[V] Loss of amenities Rs.25,000
Total : Rs.1,65,000

Total compensation of Rs.1,65,O0'OV 
of Rs.36,500/- as aWarded--.,:.t:ll31J% the V.."i:'hel
enhanced compensation. _shal,1~  Vi-nte1.'lest at  rate
of 6% per annum from    the date of
realization.   ll deposit. and
release of the  shall follow.
For the lapidleal is allowed in

part.

 .....