Sri Earesh Gatiyapa vs Sri K Chandrahasa S/O K B Gowda on 27 May, 2008

 V'  .,  '  ..... ..«
  

*Q~+,Agprhh§g
' . Riflgd. Owneroffiuck

 Rio Shri Rama Garage.

m 133 men QQUBT OF KARNATg§g f   % H
B G 0      
DATED THIS THE 27"'     
Em '~   % %   %  
THE HON'BLE MR. 

 

MISCELLANEOUS H
BETWEEN:     %

Shxi Emeshviiatiyazpa, '  " ' '
Aged23'year_s; .  
Ckm:T¥uck(3é8§n§".Av_",_
R/o Hahbusmda,      %

; 3hr1 T;H,Nada£ and R.fi.Nadaf

'APPELLAQWT

1 .% Shri  I-Inna
s/0 K.;B.Gcoda,

 BeafingIhmC33(~8S8S,
Pnndeshwar,

Mangalore
District Dalushiua Kannada.

fa

 



2. The Divisiunal Manama',

 

Unimdxnm 1mmcecm.m3,1,,,- M    

Division Office,
Karwar.

3. Snail Semi,  _ 
Ptoptietoa*ofSoni('iasAg '
Knilrini Road,  "
Utlaxu Knmmda Di V'~ 

4.     
'l'heNafiona;I.!'Ens-i:ran¢:e  ' 
 &&&&    A

Shri M.Nsugyam¢ppa; rm Respondent-4)

ififitt

    j NIi.s:-aslianwufl     & 3 First Appeal is filed under saelitm
  i73(1)ef  Vehicle Act, rm against we mam
242.2005 passed in MVC mzsaaom ms the

file-_ of elhci  2" Additional Motor Acoidw Claims
 Knrwm, paflly allowing the claim petition fut

 ' "  «  V'   and seeking enhanc%t of compensation.

 " '    This Miscullaneous First Appeal coming on Eur hearing
'   «:33 this day, the Court deiivered the following: -



 

lherespmxlctix

2. The    the
Mom: Auidem Claims   of thc
mpm         

3..   while lmvellitg in :1
mg    wlwmby the um,
   ms aummains: lhe lmck

   was Imvclling, wsulliag in s¢nous'

A   n1  oihetinjurics and as a nasal! ufwhié, {

   we appellant hasfmg c.!mmud' cnmpcm5ulum' ,lhe
  W 3. as has awanled um' ms amounts uomzrmg lo a sum of

% %%Rs.1,17,715/-. 1: is this which is under ehallangc on the yound

%



um Ihe vmious hwds under wifwh flu: aompgnmxm 

is inaduquate and requires in be enhanced.

4. The Counsel for the appeliani 2

appellant having sulfmud    

undergo lrealmeni for six    'V

was not   i wmpmsai {ion to
  and requim a
 loss or tum earnings
are   proceexitsd In award R.s.43,200/-

on   was oniy Rs.2,000J- whereas the

i i  Rs.4,000/- per month. Thcwfore,

imn ooznptmsaliun is culculakxl on that basis, if

i i i  mm at Rs.4,000/- the uppcilanl is entitled to a

K  enhancement. Similarly, insulin as loss of income

--   the pcstiud of lwaimcni is concerned, the Tribunal has

  to award oun:pensalIon° under um: head for a pm' x: of

two months at Rs2,000/- which is not adequate and hence

é

 



requires enhanuutmen-l. The loss us!' ameniiims is  at

Rx.l0,000/---. Having regard to the admitted nauwcmy _

Ihe Tribunal has noi exercised jnrisdiulism \»'_cs*.s'.-a::1'4i :ia,t::  ~ L 

adequate compensation under this 

expenses having beam   

was not justified in  i;"I'.t'J   the
appellant wuuld seek   and other

 !1Iefi3-    

wank! vaimmuy%%;gg;§..~g;¢LA%;§e and would point out mm:
the    and reasonable in adikvessing each

  claim that was raised by Ike appellant and has

 sated Ihc appellant and themfom, there is no

'  wm'ra  at  

6.Inllmlightoflhusec¢mla1lim1a,huving@'dlnlhc

 majur hmd under which the cmnpensaliam hm been gnarled

é

 



namely, loss of fimms earnings, same the basis sfgghc

appellant was Rs2,000/- is not in +   

fact that as at claunar and the      L'

2004, it would be    was

'earning over Rs.3,000/-    -ads' Jptod as the

monthly  V   Vlu Rs.64,800/- instead
01'   % is mused an sun.-h

%    as Mus of iaworne during the period of

1  if the income is taken at Rs.3,(X)0/- and

k % Lk haviggsegmd to the mum. ofinjurios ha would be umiled'

  :1 lanes of income for a period of four munihs Ind

  is enlilled m Rs.8,000l- by way of addiliunal

%

 



    ..... 

Ttihuaal has awarded R.«..xo,ooo/–. Having

mama’ la nmcle by [he Medusa!’ PI’m:lilvi*Jm:!’,_ 51 & ‘ Z

reasunabie to enhance lhe same by .
the head of pain and suifefing,
awardedby the Tribunal, it .».,..;.1 A ii by

a further sum” of ‘
pm. The appellant =

is held mauaam 3 % :@’:u’f&ipensalnm’ as afixt-mmd’ in a

lots} sum; af inlcmst per aannm from the

Judge