Karnataka High Court
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