B/EA N0.1649.!2fl{}3
IN mm HIGH corner or KARNAMKQA %A-ff _Vf
cmcurr BENCI-I AT D;iARW_aLi3»' VI & Q ~
nxrsn mm TEE 2911* my 01-"
3EF9'V'¥¥
'1-'HE HoN*m.:;
mscELLA.1mous VVH(};»'1é49[2008 gm
Between: V' V' V V 'V 'V
sr1.Hu;agaji,. --Kh9:1aé§,'
Aged abeut 9 '_
Occ: B1lSiI1fiSS ,' ' Resi::!_.emt-of--_Ha.t1:;maVn Road ,
Ainavar;'I'a1u_1§' 2i:'n;i3:é__I}.iVs"ir;'v1('3t. }Z)ha;rwad.. .. APPELLARTS
(By Sri.S':1z1_J3.y
5., «V"$'ri';""Vbfi!tV§'g"}1a«_ raj Vé§i'andraka11th Kaiai,
.. " -1~.4TAaLjpf=,»V€,3§§c--:Eusiness,
" _ ="__Re~'si{i-;:1i;.§;f'3A3navar,
A V 'Taluk Dist:{)ha:waé..
S§i.S}a}?1a e
MFA }§€0'1649f2€}G3
2
This appeai is filed 'l}.I1§€{' Section 173 (3) cf MV Act
against the jucimctit and award dated 26.05.2007 passed
in MVC No.1233/2004 on the file of the ii Add}; Civil
Judge (Sr.If}:1.} and MACH', Belgaum, at Khanapuf,'
allowing {ha claim petition for <:0n}peI1sati;:'£1'4.$3jg3r;}s:§.:;g~.A
enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on for ord'e':'~s;
deiivcrcd the followiilgt ' . .
1.
Theugh this matter has Htfie-éfr;-.§istér;fi admission,
the same is taker; up fe:§I’*– consent.
2. This the.”§:”i;iureé~claima11t not being
satisfied ::r_’1_th_ the.:_ ‘ and award passed by the
(i’.1aim§:»’*I*ribz1’f121i”i11’h’i\I£\}’C ‘M1233/2004 dated 26-05-2007
iviagreeéy wixereignéer the mbunal has awamed a $11111
usA:)’f ? ,’S%:§:;’8§)f).;j-».’iogether with interest at 6% p.a. from the
L da’:e’ie3f at the ciaim petitsm.
: “Efhe main gflunds urged by ihcit learned counsel for
V. appeilant is that the appellant was earriing Rs.5,000/ –
. ufto Rs.6,C1€){}/– per month as a b:.13ir1ess man and that the
appfizllam; $ufi’ers 65% cf whole fly disability. The
WA Ne.1649¢’2008
3
Claims Tribunal has taken the functional disabiiity at 20%
which is Without proper appreciation of the evidence He
has produced medical bills Worth Rs. 1,02,000/ ~,
it may be presumed that he has sufiered-IE1
undergoing eeatment. He fu1’the?:* ‘{éont;er1fi3es
of earning capacity ought to have /.ett».Ez59L’:{:{“:;11.zt._VV
not 20%. Hence, this afimm;
4». I have carefully ‘placed on
record. all three fractures for
which the epeefiaet eiai:e锑te have undergone treement
for t\&fe*v 3;r;oI§;{1;e,V’ ” seme has been accepted by the
doctor who has treated the
examifled and he has issued the
_disa¥frélit3:_'” cetjifaeate. According to him, his right lower
H is eifiyrtened by two inches, movement of joint of hip
are restricted. He has not stated what is the
VT “(‘ie§ee of the restriction of the particuiar hip or knee joint.
9’ ‘ A. The deetor has assessed the whole body ciieability at 65%
MFA Ni). 164952008
4
without: assessing the percentage of disability a
particular limb. Therefore, the learned MAUI’
observed in para 12 of the judment and… 3 ‘:9; ”
doubt as to the percentage of ;z§§:2;_ ‘V
PW–2 which has not beenV.eeeepted f’~ Mereige
appellant has spent Rs. /_-2 Ieedicines
does not mean that he of disabiiity.
However considering the sustained by
appellant ‘__.treatr}.1ei1t_ j_4Ve:i(.?{ei’gene by him the
Tribunailhas :2s.35,oe0/– towards pain
and $uffe1?i:f1g? – towards meciical exgeenses
” /~ »€ewa_rd.e transportatiozi, diet eta, Further
‘€.i”1e» the absence of predzxetien of any
deeueiez1fer;§*?’j__e:e§dence by the appellant to peeve his
‘ixtgeezne fightly taken his income at I~?s.3,D{}G/~ p.m.
it is a weil established law that the mrcentage ef
” ._.§’ ‘:d}isV:f:bflity 01″ a particuiar limb hae :0 be divided by 3 to
lessees the actual fmzetional disability or 3:333 01″ earrzring
capacity. In the instant ease the learneé MACH’
Ev§*’A No. 164912008
considering the fractures sustaizled by appellant ap.d. the
nature of tI’€£:1tIIt€I1t 113f}d&I’g(Z)}TiS by him has ate”
the <:{}I1<:111$ic:I1 that appellant suffared only _
body disability. Therefore, by'; M.%ipp§.§,afé"j;21_g -:
multipliar '14' which is a.pp1ica1 )}ti 'tL§ fac'E:sn
circumstances of the case.,""'L'L.§€;}f'1:: Eightiy V
quantified the compenxéiiiqn fi"2:e"L'h=ead 'ffitfife loss of
earrxings' to the exterif, H_(}f Rs.25,(}O0/–
towarcis lavas, aité33€nit.iJ<3s.'a:1t§v~..t{3wards loss of income
Rs.18,00e{)/~_ 'i1aS"'V'0eé11,Tétw.érded. Therefom, viewed from
any angle,' _n£3t_ illegafity or incorréctrxess in
the j1;<"}–g1neni»..a11-:1' award passed by the Tribunal.
._j""'§5if1era%fé§3i'<ij,.L.A it. is Iidt–a-1"fit case 1:0 admit. Hence, it is
vat,_th§_-": stage at' admission. Accoréingly, IA
N':.3{1~,!_{§3 bjiwtize appe}133:1tr'seei<:ir:g to C€)i1d{}i"1€i delay is
21180 <ié\sm,§s5::€i.
Sd/—
JUDGE
I