IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS TI-IE cam DAY or AUGUs'1"'2'a'1-§)_%"1'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICES. :ABDi:L.:
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST No. 199]2c09{1§aVj *
BETWEEN:
SR1. MAHADEVA
s/0. SOMA
AGEDABOUR29 YEARS, . ._
R/AT. KM. DoDD:.{BHARATH1'1'¢zaQHAR_} ' '
MADDURTALUKV '
MANDYA "
NOW R/AT LAKSI%§MAM}V'2AfS*}iQUS'E,
8T" CROSS, %.QANpH'I:gA.GA_R,V.__ '
MADYA CITY. .
. ' ..... ..APPELLANT
[BY SRI:K.i'*/I. SANATHKL}I\JL!;RA ='ADV.,)
AND:
" E _sR:;__ sygap MUKEEI\ri"i{'HAN @
VASYEZD MUKEEMULLA KHAN
' 3/ O --LA"1f.E;' S HAFIULLA.
"#.6*;?'2,/A;V EDGA 'MOHALLA,
MALAvALL:L.'r0WN,
MAIAVALLE.
1 WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE
"(}?Q }N0.'-349)
HALAGUR POLICE STATION
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
2. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. L'1'D., ._
NO. I576. 18? FLOOR, V
v.v. ROAD
I>.I3. NO. 54.
MANDYA CITY. I
._ , RESPONDENTS
{BY SR1: II/IAI)I–IUSIIDAI_\I. AIJV.,”FOF{“R._I, SR1: ‘MAKAIVI
NAGARAJA GUPTA. AID\/.. ‘FOR R2} Q’ I
THIS MFA IS FILED L1;<S_ '1.73( I I OF ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND_ AWARD;DATI;:.D:-.'V27;_Q5.2O08 PASSED IN MVC
NO.-48/2007 ON TIIIIE If«'I'I,E:- OF _ ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN.} & M£j3NIB£iR;-~KriAC3"If;–«.__MI4\NIT)Y'A. PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM IvETITIOI\fi_I_ FOR 'GDM'PENSAI'ION AND SEEKING
ENIAIAI\IGE:xIIE,I\IT OF C::O.MIIEI'I.SATI'OI\I..v "
TI»IIS_APPEAL'«i;'O:IvII,I$I'G__:O–I\I' FOR ORDERS THIS DAY. THE
COURT DELIVEI{ED_"f'H,E. E'OI,I;O'wING:
A'§fII5GMENT
A "1'-hCis?~."Gapp.(;:aI ISV""IdIrectec1 against the judgnmnt and
aim-'cIIIIIn~ :I'I/I'I.('.(Z4VIN'c,I'..1418/2007 CIATED 27.5.2008 On the file Of
"the Ad.§IitiOrI3I}'Civil Judge (Sr. D11.) and MACT, Mandya.
AA21ppe1iv2–.fn: was the claimelnt and the reSpDI1deIItS were
u
the owlier and insurer of the offeriding veliicle. 'i'heiie",i_s no
dispute as to the occurrence of the accident: an_dm'f.'1'I'€"V.'
of the second respondent ~ Insurance to pays"
Compensation. '1' he appellant has:=.,:i'i1e_cithise,;ip;oe21l"Vseeiiiieng
enhancement. of compensation;
2. I have heardvthef learned the parties.
3. I.ea.i’i1ediiieouinselHifiqr t_11eL’app’ei1ani. would contend
that having_v{regs;f’d:«1.;§pVV the _r:Vne’di.Cei1.»vevidenee on record, the
compenseition’ pain and suffering and
towards ame’nj_ties Eire Von”a_1ower side. The claimant was an
4._inpatie.ri:i: “for 47 was doing Ioading and unloading
A’work1″si,VNlvigirxedf/ie£’.vHe was earning more that RS200/– per
ought: to have taken his income
e1r:cordiiig1y’Awhile assessing the loss of future income. It is
wev4i’u..i’thei*”contended that he was aged 28 years at the time of
‘Ci
r
vi
the accxiderit- Therefore, the ‘i’ribunal ought to have adopted
the multiplier of 17 for assessment of loss of future ih’me.
it is further argued that the award of Rs.5,00..(),/attoti%jard.s
attendant charges, conveyance, transport, ete._’;’~-is’al’so on*aV
lower side. So also loss of ineozne dtii’1ng«_T1aid».__upperiod.
The learned Counsel has tal<er:_4n"1e throtigh the .eVide'i';1e'ei oi:
the parties. The documents lvlvlprloduced 'the'; claimant
before the Tribunal and't:he.. in1.'_ot1_g–n'e:d_ jindgmentl and award.
4. On thsJo’ther{A’ advocate appearing
for the seeond respondent_:¥v—-i_1’1’surance company has sought
to justify the irnptignedalttidgnfient and award.
A carefully considered the arguments of the
lealrnecl,’eoVulri_sel’,rn.ade at the Bar and perused the material
placed on “record.
5
6. it is clear from the evidence of the Doctor that
the claimant had suffered serious injuries. The asse_ssn1ent.
of 15% permanent disability to the whole
reasonable. The accident had occurred of
December, 2006. in my view. the Cfourtrbieluow’ olu’ghtito_ hai/e
fixed his income per day .at-..__.Rs.VlE>_O’/’~V
month}. Since the claimant yearsvnat the time of
the accident, the multiplier’ 17. If that is so,
the claimant is entitlecl_.a«1’Gr.:a lt.ata1″1_5i’ Rs. 1,:-37,700/-
towards loss ~inc_onjie. The of Rs.3E3,000/~
towards bairi isjust and reasonable. Further,
the award oi7.__Rs,v8.xOO(J,/ to’wards loss of amenities is on a
_ .. lower side.’ In my”opin_ion, it is just and reasonable to award
Av’2iV of under this head. As noticed above, he
was”hospital.i’s:ed’ufoi’ about 47 days. Therefore, I award a
sum of l”2s’}10,000/– towards conveyance, attendant charges
4Aand.Votl3er incidental expenses. The claimant, should have
i
t’
been awarded 3 months income towards loss oufificome
during the treatment period which comes to in
the light of the above discuesion. the Clai1′}”l.11’i””~;§E?0i”1iif.–1C(}_:fOi”
compensation as under:
(1) Loss of future in(:oh1’e_._
(2) Pain and sufferings 0
(3) Medical expeiiae-s’
(4) At:tend.ant;ch:aI*geé:;’ V
com/.eyari_’ee charges ”
and ‘.:)th5€3_”_–.ir1’Cid_€I2f{.al .
eyofpeiises ‘
(5) 0 00I00;ossf’o_i’
‘ITh_e.iai(}’:”L.1piperiod ‘ ‘
(6) 1:053 oi”0ame:1i’t.i_e_e3
Rs,1 .3c;7§?_00;0(§;:
R:-3…’ 0 ~ 3_§,00f0–00
00 ” % 5.00000
‘Rs. 10.00000
Rs. 13,500–00
Rs. 25,000–00
Rs. 2,26,200–00
0’1’-he f”I’i’ibLmai has awarded a total sum of
ii
‘ R,.VS.1,5i0,QOO’/.”V0\NhiC11 has to be deducted from the aforesaid
:a.,rjjr)Vurii;..cA Thus. the claimant is entitleci to additional
_ .. such c’.epos~i.t.. Ndeosts. V
7
compensation of Rs.”/”‘5.200/M. The aforesaid sum shall
carry interest at the rate of 6% pa. from the date of
appiieatmn till the date of deposit.
8. In the result, the appealm”st.IieCi.eed«s::V’and’Wit his ‘
accordiiigly aliowed in part. : The’.__se.e0nd di*_esp0’nttefi~t.:VF»
insurance Company is direct’ed”i.t0 de.pOsit_= as sum of
Rs.75,200/~ with ir1teres~t_ date of
application. till the date of to what has
been awarded by éttighTribtiria’i’:wi’i:l’iin.”‘a._pei”iod of eight weeks
from t11e:*{_:iatte* i’i*e*eii’pt ‘i3if.’:.'(;v:)p*3r-dot’ this order. The Tribunal
is directed tddisbuifséediithe”:-said amount to the claimant 011
gal t
NDGE