High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Giriyappa S/O Chikkabyatappa vs Sri C Byregowda on 22 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Giriyappa S/O Chikkabyatappa vs Sri C Byregowda on 22 October, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
EN TEE HIGH OOORE OE KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22M}DAX OE OCTOBER, 2009 yya'
BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE v.JAGANNAIEAN,yff

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.I497§Eg§ gggj°{MV1,'if

BETWEEN:

Giriyappa,

S/O.

Chikkabyatappa,

Aged about 29 years,

R/at No.166,_?" Cross,
Devasandra, _ ; _ ,--y ''p
BangalOrew560 036.34' .€'§y" "._*":,;

[By Sri. N.O§pa;krisEna}§Aav.

K.RrPuram,
APPELLANT/S

s.3,_: 'I -.

AND:

E.

C.ByregoWéa;yV _ A V';
S/o.vChikkamOniyappd,"
Major by.age:V

x *R/ati'Bavanahalliwvillage & Post,

'DJ

'1 Rap. by its Manager.

. Branch Office,

KaSabaAflObli,

'yMalOr1TOwn;g

'ficlar Uéstribti

The Bnited India Insurance Company Ltd.,
I Fioor,
"Bagalur-ManSiOn,

.fDOddapet,

'KOlar--563 101,
RESPONDENT/S

{By Sri. M.R.Shalamala, Adv. for R1 [absentfi
Sri. S.KriShna Kishore, for R2.}

zk-A’*

2 MFA l4973/O7

This MFA is filed u/Sec. 173(1) of the M.V. Act
against the Judgment and Award dated 25.4.2097

passed in MVC No.2015/2006 on the file of X:E.Addl,
Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, .uMACE,dag_}

the Court delivered the followingi, 2

JUDGEMEX:

The appellant seating. enhancement of the
compensation on the grease that the MAEE had failed
to take into apcount tha iossiof earning capacity
35% as per the medipal euidence on record, loss of

amenitiesj and’ alsoW loss, oi income during the

treatment period. V

2{fi%;,The learned counsel for the appellant

stbmitsa that gin._the doctor’s evidence before the

if; VTribudal, he has clearly stated that the appellant

7_ has got 35% disahiiity for the whole body following

_ the fracture of both the bones of right tibia and

fracture of right femur and as there is a nonwunion

-of the right femur and right tibia and dislocation

“55 right shoulder, the doctor had opined that the

disability is at 35% for the whole body. The MAC?

erred in taking the disability at 15%. More over,

E’

3 MFA 149?3/07

the appellant is a mason by occupation and with the

aforesaid disability the earning capacity reduced to_

great extent. He has sought for enhancement tofiardsq *

loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and loss of ”

income during the treatment period of €_fi©fithSglfi_l

View of the treatment taken for” fiixation :of*

interlocking nail.

3. Sri. O.Mahesh,?ilearnedimcdnnsel for the
Insurance Companyvplacing reliance pfiffithe decision
reported in 138: aéd ad ghahuchafifia fig. Anantharaman
& Ors] submits that as the’in§ured§claimant did not
co–operabs with fling doctor _ami refused tr) undergo
operation ofi his leg, the damages will have to be

reduced -on that -account and consequently, the

?compensation would also come down.

d_4ta 1 have heard the iearned counsel for both

side.

ini, As for as the decision referred supra by the

learned counsel Sri. O.Mahesh is concerned, that was

a -case where the Court foundi on facts that the

Aninjuredwclaimant did not co~operate with the doctor

and, refused. to undergo operation of his leg and

%

g ;

4 MFA 14973/07

therefore, it is in these circumstances the Court

took the view that the damages will have to _he

reduced on that account, whereas in the case before ”

us, it was not refusal on the part of themappellanti”

to undergo operation, but there was delay_in”getting_,

treatment on account of financial reasons,a As such,*

the aforesaid decision is finapplicahleT {Q the

instant case.

6. On going xthrough» the*_eVidence° on record,
particularly tbdt of Dr}PLManohar, iwam of the view
that the loss. of_ earning._capacity taken as 35%

V …. ..A’, *g,_»a.y «-i f N
having regard_to the nature_of the injury sustained

and the occupation of.the appellant as a mason and

consequently uunderr thef head of loss of future

Vearning capacity, the appellant is only entitled to

Ra;;;i4}2Q0gcfi*_ as ‘ against Rs.86,400–OO. The

‘v’.»difference_will be Rs.l,27,800-00. Towards loss of

*w,amenitiesg*a further sum of Rs.10,UO0~00 is awarded

‘”4and’ towards loss of income during the treatment

‘”a_period, in View of the operation undergone by the

hi”, uapoellant, Rs.18,000wOO is awarded. Thus the

appellant gets enhanced compensation by

}/

. i”

5 MFA 14973/O7

Rs.l,55,800–0O. That amount shail carry interest at

6% p.a.

The award is modified by allowing the’a§pea;ninnné

gart.