M wnmwup Illa/AV-wéiu/rfl -v.x«~»_s_u-;«.>aw.w mu uwmmmwmamxxwfi _w2«o»mz "mat: y<\2.&r"'1mxr'(s+"%£8Wb7M5?""6silV»45'<"'QE uumwnv ' '
S/0 MQhd.Khader Hussein,
Age major, Occ: Driver,
Deshpande Galli,
R/0 Basavakalyan
Bidar District.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd,
Through its Manager} n"'*,: *
Osman Gunj Eranch Gffice f1' ,~nw
15-i--~503/B«28, Ashok Max:-k,ét, '
Foolkhana, M .~-'r Y a
Hyderbadw5600Ql2 V _e___
3 3V" . fv ,Respondents.
(By sri.s.s.Aspa1"41'1 f'o4r"P'3--
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is fileé u/s
173(1) of_MV Act againsfi,the judgment and award
dated 26.3;Q4 passed in MVC no.1/O1 on the file of
the learnedg =Civil, Vfiudge {Sr.Dn.) & MACT,
Basavakalyan, partly "allowing the claim: petition
fog ¢dmpensetion*» and seeking enhancement of
*QQmpensatidnfV.
'e~Thie~eMEA:fceming on for orders this day,
ii_ MANJUNATH.«'3}.delivered the following:~
JUDGMENT
‘n 2f~This appeal is by the claimant seeking
*ixennaneement of ‘the compensation awarded by’ the
;~mr:+, Basvakalyan dt . 26″‘ March 2004 in MVC
‘$10.3./2001.
income has to be assessed at 50%£_flo§ hie total
income. But we are unable to :agteel %ith, the
arguments advanced by the learnea eopnael {of the
appellant. b bull 1 A I 1 ill ‘A
8. We have seen the fietafi otoduoed hf the
appellant which discloses the nature of amputation
of four fingeteivhfionsifieting the extent of
amputatipnt of itoflt Lfingeteh of left hand and
functional dieafiiiggg eaesafi to the appellant an
an ofdin%%£§lahent, ee”are inclined to take 1/3
of his inceme as iaésiofihifigoge. If it is so, the
loss of ,futnte ‘ie¢§mé=}Qou1d be Rs.l2,000/-per
annum’ %$afl%pQlyi%gmfibe multiplier of 17, we have
to *:aseessAn”the*» future loss of income at
tVR$,2,Q&,CfiO[e: tin addition to that the appellant
_ iea entitlefl* for a snun of Rs.25,000/– under the
thead, _medical expenses, conveyance, attendant’s
llhhafgee, a sum of Rs.l5,000/- under the head, loss
elect amenities in life. Thus, in all the appellant
ewmwm wt” Msmwmmntm U?’ Kfifiwfiiflfifi HHGW @0133?” W? %fiRN&°”fflWfl fiififi fi(.M.W”T €33? Hifiti? mmmt fit? Kfiflwflfflfifi HIGH C
{fix
axxeguwnmw new mnwacvmuwsnr awn”-autumn-e.sor”‘umIm”‘u mu wmwwwwmua wavy: mum-m|nu.uc-«mr-wm.m’nuu.r-w my
uwrmns wwwrwwms mm m<wma'www.Mmwamw'w; }':'.5E<{|a&?§% w'mrw..avm,s win uflgwmanzwmme-mmmm :"¢s;e~a..'.wy"$5 mmgmws
law. Accordingly, we reject the contentien 65 the
learned counsel for the resQQndentgm"'t
10. In the result, the abpeaIeie”e1iofiéd inV”
part. The compensation ewereed by fine Trinenai is
enhanced front Rs.§7,4OQX§erto_ Re}$€e9EbOO/- with
interest at 6% fi:a,t §Jéut1 Qfi the enhanced
compensation, — a n*snfi;V*gf &n§e;l;5O,OOO/~ with
proportionate @ntereet:sn3li $5 deposited in the
name <§fmtE§;neQQeI§enrrtfefififi period <3f 5 years.
The resti 55; thek amount be zeieased to the
appelieat;
Sdfo
Judge
Sdfl-
Judge