Surappa Narayan Lotulkar vs Laxman Ishwar Hanabar on 3 November, 2008

0
137
Karnataka High Court
Surappa Narayan Lotulkar vs Laxman Ishwar Hanabar on 3 November, 2008
Author: D.V.Shylendrakumar & B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT or   

CIRCUIT BENCH   

Dated this the 3rd day ¢:VN¢§ember%2(S0S  

PREQENT     
THE I-IOIPBLE am AJ;xs1*IC$Vi§1:v%s21;Y1}5n"rmm;§i-{Hagan
ms !i()fi€'§LE:i§lR  3 Am
 f;é"7'§1 ofgoos IMVI

SUl.RAP_P-A NA.2AYzaN L0'1"i.I_L§§.AR

AGED :29 YEARS;QCC:'A,GE2lCULTURIST,

R/O JATA.GE,*HA'LAS_AL. _POS'I',

KHANAsP1_JRTAL¥}K'._ 

BELGAUM D1S'I'RIC'1""  APPELLANT

 .A [Bf Sfiéiddappa S Sajjan Adv for
Sri Ravi G Sabhahit]

      

'i.AXiidA?¥"ISHWAR HANAESAR
MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS,
AA [ R/('LMANGALWAR PETE

' "AT : POST LONDA, KHANAPUR' TALUK,
" ._B.ELGAUM DISTRICT

THE NEW INITJIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD,

BELGAUM
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER  RESPONDENTS

[By A N Krishnaswamy, Adv for R-2;
R» I served]

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) 0}? MV ms.
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.9.2002 pA’s_sE::«._us: M/c’~
010.1553 00 2000 on THE ms OF’ ms PRL. CI’.»’iL.=IUDG~E (~SR.DN}..

AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM; ~PAR’13LY MAL;Lf;f~Wii*€_C3;. THE ‘;

cuss sermon ms corv:PEr§sA’:f1:;>z~; zmD._ ‘-.,sssrgm;3
ENHANCEMEN1’ OFCOMPENSATION. ‘ ‘ * ~

“ms APPEAL COMING F01?HEARI§I0}§._’THI.S–‘3 Dam’
sxmmnm gums, J., DEL1vsRE;0_*ms F0L:,0w0;:aG:;

This appeal Motor Vehicles
Act
, 1988 1303i 1553 of 2003, on
the file V01? Claims Tribunal,
Belgaurs, in 0t1300§.udg111ent and award dated 27-9–

2002. dissatisfied with the total –

compcfjisafion 036,640/-, which the tribunal has

0′ of the appellant-claimant in resperct of

by him as 9. result of the accident

V -V11″:vo1″ii11′;g’-~’:1ai1s”fm0tor cycle bearing Regn No KA-~22 ~ L-4109,

hit by a truck bearing Regl No KA~22 — 677

in the opposite direction on the 7th Februaxy 2000

“–«::ét”012. 15 pm on the Kapoli–Madigunji road near Diggegaii

3%

cross while the ciajmant was riding his motor eyeie from

Gunji to Jatage in Khanapur taluk of Beigaum V,

2. As 3. result of the collision between :”tw’o

the motor cycle was damaged, ti3e”i’idet_ T.

suffering fracture on the right pateilzaiatid

below the eye and another the

3. It is the version Vofzthe he was admitted

to a hospitai at..vLonda”‘ot2::’the._sa.ej;e where he took

siiifted to the district hospital,
Be1gaum§”a;1d.e%hew_}§e$~%§i’xt,ifi’#15atieI1t from 8-2-2000 to 25-2-

2000 eurgery for the reparation of the

axsocltmmed that the ciaimant had incurred

sum of Rs 15,000/~ by way of medical

V’ _ expe’13se:§;’ -that the accident has caused permanent

H H u to the claimant and that he was {Enable to move

as eariier and therefere put forth 9. ciaim for 3. sum

T et’Rs 6,oo,oeo/–.

4» In support of such claim, the
documentary evidence in the fe1*n’z–of
documents were marked
company has marked a ‘Ne
oral evidence was adduced d I

5. It is on the tribuna}
had payable in
favour of heads. Towards
fractuteedafd cdedcensafion of Rs 315,000/~ is
awarded ” simple injuries, a sum of Rs

3,Oi4}§3f–c..is ‘I;he tribunal has awarded a sum of

dd%cas »5,<jé;e,/ge«.%eaga:x:s£ the claim of Rs 15,000/~ by the

medical expenditure, and hospitalization

chairgesj confined to Rs 3,600/~ and under the head of

_ and loss of amenities etc., a sum of Rs 20,000] –

. was 'awarded.

T It is being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

awarded under the above heads, the present appeal by the

injured claimant.

‘fgé. The insurance company though had
contended that it is not due to the negligent ‘xjash

driving by the driver of the truck the accident”

due to the riding of the motorcycle, dd

appears, has not pursued the ddfet’ti”.;er,
the claimant alone had comemto, appeel

seeking for enhancemenjt of the

S 2 We have Sri ‘Stddappja_ learned counsel

for _ the records.

‘in ‘The dfétcte above, particularly, the fact that

V’ –the’:t.(,foneluei,on ti’1e”n*ibuna1 that it was only the driver of

‘V was responsible for the accident which

reSn_Ited- to the claimant and his hospitalization

SQLQOOO to 25-2-2000 etc., are all not in dispute and

A of compensation should be decided on such

…pfemise.

6

10. We ftifld that the quantum of Rs
against injury, pain, sufering ete., in respect,
and other injuries, is on the
proper to increase the same.e’Eo__.Rs’A30;’GOO
this, We have neticeci that the
Claimant to remain fer not less
than 17 to 18 days. expenditure for

payment of as the claimant

has of Rs 5,040/-, while it
has to “is, we find some scope for

enhancement ..:Voi’- cdinfiensafion under the head of

.AiI0ui’ieI1irierit;t’_atte1’§§iei’:ce charges etc., from Rs 3,600/– to

regard to the factum of 18 days’

‘ _ at a place away from his native place, which

H H ” tieeeesitated an attendance also to be present with him.

A’ tlnder the head ef disability and loss of futzire income

V’ “;=a;’r1d also under the head of loss of amenities etc., we find it

is a fact that the claimant has suffered a fracture which

definitely causczi a loss in futme also and under _

pui: together, while the tribunal has gstimatcfl’

20,000] –, we deem it proper to cnhafice t’-_.:xe ~

12. In the rcsult, wt; z;}11o£=a?«..V”ihi.:§:_:’–aj:2._::§ea1 E11-.par§It and the
judgment and award stands modified,
enhacning the ~~:éi’V})”<)ve. The amount
as mdetermiué{i'tot£{i éfimpéfiéafion of Rs 80,040]–

{Rupees

13. xi}’.’§l’S’1V1I’8I§{“f’.» is directed to deposit the

difi’erem.:eL of lfiéfore the tribunal within 3. period of

‘ . °s§1§; tliefldéité bf receipt of a copy of this judgment. In

including the rate of interest and investment

c$§:’.,__j£he and award of the tribunal stands as it is.

Sd/-~
Judge

sa/-:_
*pjk Tudge

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *