High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Hanumanthappa S/O Bheemappa vs Sri S M Ananda S/O Somashekhara … on 27 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumanthappa S/O Bheemappa vs Sri S M Ananda S/O Somashekhara … on 27 August, 2008
Author: B.S.Patil
 . Bijapuiz 

..... ti ......
IR' THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAHGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2773 DAY OF AUGII81' 2008
BEFORE

THE Holmw l¥!R..J'G8'I'ICE 3.3. PATIL  j

M.F.A. no.11g.-57 or goes m    'A   

Sri. Hamzmanthappa,

S] o.Bheen:1appa, V

Agcrd about 33 years,  

C] 0. Chandrashckarappa, Lectt1x'e:;f; *  b

R/ofiogga Village, 

Shimoga District. V   --_  , "  APPELLANT
(By Sri.M.V.Maheshwa1ap;:)a;'_Ad§;_j   h' V' V

1.

Sri.S;’M.Ana3:r.da,.f-~.._ %
s; o.Soma’shei<aIa
Aged Major; {{)W11er'~';fTippcr
L011}: bea1*ii.:1g'NoV.R'.A 23/450 1),
C,' iQ.G."Shanka1*,. Class I Contractor,

Mukhesh,

r S! R"-"~'?3 §'MafijaPPa,
aged ma§orjD1iver of Tipper
may baa:-ing No. KAQSI 450 1)
R] o.'Ri;3ponpctc, Hosanagara Taluk,

v " » mm. 1\Ib.646/98-99,va1id upto
7.93.2001, Badge NQ163/2.

. ._ A ” 3. V’ ibfational Insurance Company Limited,

~7Representer2R-*1
S;r:i..M.Narayanappa, Adv. for R-3,
R-2 is served)

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Mvem
against the juégment and award dated 29.05.2006
MVC No.4~72/ 2001 on the file of the Add]. Civil Judge’ {S12 131.14}

and Add}. MAC’I’., Shimoga, partly the K ‘
for compensation and seeking enhancement of cqmpensaficn?’

with 12°/o interest.

This Appeal coming on. for

Court delivered the folkxwingt :

1. This is an appeai’ seeking

enhancement 0!’ ct:i11§_zensafi6i1;~

2. A;:V1V:vv–;ac:c=itie:,r;.;u”vt:V 14.02.2001, when the claims” nt

was fixing bz}1t i<:; of the Tractor Trailer. At that

_ time a..%fi'ipp«zr 1,o£xy..Vbear;}3g registration No.¥{A~28/450}. which

in a rash and negligent manger dashed

ran over the stomach of the claimant.

V _As a""'1"r;sL:it. the accident, the claimant sustained grievous

He was admitted to Nanjappa Hospital, Shun' 0384

-_v’Vhere–AhAe took treatment.

VT The claimant filed a Claim Petition under Section. 166 of

‘ ” ” Vthe Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensafion contending inter

%,

v) Loss of eanlifigs duxing
the laié up period : Rs. 9,000] –

vi} Loss of future earning : Rs.31,0{)O/ –

in all, the Tribunal has awarded coz3ahpeI1satio.:1.’_fi1V.VaL:wA.§~:,::1.sn 9

R3.97,30(}/~ along with interest at 8%

petition till the date of actual’ eeposiek Agggievéd by’; {lie

inadequate compensation awaxdevfi; is befom this

Court in this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appeflajgrf, Vs1_1?;:1_Irllfs although the

Doctor has the Tnbunal has

emmeouoly _’ at 10%. He has f11x1:I1e:r
contendedlthai the towaxtis medical expenses

and towattls 1o”s3_:’ofemei>.i1:iee at Rs.’?,300/- and Rs. 10,000/–

l¥3Sp€(3$.i€”{?§§7′.iS”{)I2 the 1¢wer side.

, the nespon.dent~Insm’ance Company

Suppofts ‘findings recorded by the Tribunal and the

H H ” 1 4.” of compensation determined.

Having heard the learnecl counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the zaatefials on record including the

efdence of the Doctor, I find that the Doctor has deposed that

has spoken about the disability at 25%, in the instant case the
assessment of compensation requires to be made by the

disability at 15%. If the compensation is reworkegi

percentage of disability at 15°/in, the loss of

come to Rs.91,80{)/–. The ‘I’Ii}3una}_’has–.e11’eneciisi}%_eediictedii

50% of the amount out of the cf

Since it is a case of injury V

such deduction is not ~T{‘he ilicieciicalii expenses
awarded in a sum of 1és;%,–3G3%/3’§’:i1$ Q11 the bills. 111
additiori, a sun1_:of_ Rs.iiG§(3{.!VQ,’Vj” the Tdbunal
towards iticidental expenses. A
31351 Of towards less of amenities
and coiiifoits of the injury suffered by the

claimant heeisonable. Hence, I do not find any

, need’ ifiterfeee’ witfiflie award in respect of these heads as

they __a1:1d reasonable assessment in the facts and

case. in respect of all other heads. the

V . awaxded does not call for interference. Thcugh

i:3_.co1itended by the learned counsei for the appellant that

ag1’e– std the injury, the claimant is compietely disabled and his

it ‘ e prospects have been affected, as there is no

acceptable evidence in this regard, the said contention is

rightly rejectad by the»'{‘r1″buna1.

8. In the result and for the foregoing, this ap:I_:~_téi”

in part. The Compensation to which the ”

enhanced and fixed at F?s.1,58,100;:f~. %

far in.tenest at 6% pa. 0:}. theV»i:r;hanified”’emou?a{.A. tlige ‘date %.

of petition till its realisation. shall be
deposited within a of._:s2§:ée.1§s {he date of
receipt of a copy of this x x D»

53/:

Iudg”5

PKS