V' --. (B'f §R-f*PRAKASflI{YEi;i, ADV.)
: V
in 1113 men coxmrr or K.AR1lATAK§* .. _
cmcurr amen AT DHARWIW:--- A if
IJATED mm mm 1973 DAY, as K A'
nzmm A Q
was Horrnm MR.' Qriagsfrréw. 4.3,.
msu. No. 3;;§9.1@s
BETWEEN:
TANAJI TUKARAM PAz)A'IfAjFjéra V' f
AGED ABOUT? 2:§}'YE:1.vRS';__
occ ;.A<*;;2:TcULTti.R«E MILK
VENDING BUSINE_:Ss % ;
R/O FA_[)ATARWAD.{ " _
TAL:ATHARI . wj *=""
DIST': BELGAUM ._
APPELLANT
1' V N,AR'.ét;éAB KASIMSAB JAMADAR
AGE5 MAJOR, occ : BUSINESS
"152/:0 {NAM DHAMANI
~ 4_ TAL: MIRAJ, DIST: SANGLI
% 'é THE} NEW mom ASSURANCE (:30. um,
BY ITS DIVISIOINAL MANAGER
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM ---- 590 016
RESPONDENTS
(By SR1 RAVINBRA A CHAUGULE, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS Erma ws 173(1) 0? Mvf’Acr.. “A1N
MVC NO. 1443/2005 on THE F’ILE”C3F”TH-:E.Ci\I3,L”JUDGE§
(SR.DN.) AND ADDL. MACE’, ATHA’NI,1’f’AR’TLY ALLOV’J ‘EN(“§1.’1’HE
CLAIM PE’FI’i’ION FOR CO_MPEN—-SA’!’ION JJ..;-mu ” SEEVKIHG
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPEf€$}3′.1_’ION§” V ‘
THIS APPEAL coMINQ%%e:§'”Fo’R_ADM’IsSIQ%b§, THIS BAY,
THE coum’ DELIVEREB. THE EQLLLVDW-ENG:
Thai. before this Court seeking
Qf as against the sum awaxtied
by thc§’-A£idition},=ii~.v I’yE;it01fT’A§§¢ident Claims Tribunal, Athani (for
shoztthe ‘Auger; 140.1443/2006.
the learned counsel for the parties and perused
‘ ~. En respect 0f the injuxics sufihred by the daimant in
A A tIié~«_’accidcnt which occurred on 34.5.2006, the AMACI’ has
Vfawa1*ded the iota} compensation of Rs.2,49,300/ –. While
‘ seeking enhancement of the ctsmpcnsafion, the icamed
Counsel for {he appellant would contend that the AMACP was
2
(‘I
4
indicated that the claimant had sufiered fracture of right
femur and compound comménuted fiacture of and
fibula, also other injuries indicated therein. The” is
said to have taken treatment as an inpatient foeaboat
Further, the hospital Ieeonds am:i.:the._ L.
produced. The inpatient bills Were: ”
P12 anal other biils were mari».-fiefiiat EXhs.P3_3
6. Insofar as the «.the_, has
noticed the said fihexeafter come to the
conclfision’tha§’3e1fe1ai have been produced, some of them
were pricir accident and noticing the actual
‘V the has awarded the appropriate sum as
*t1:_1e genuine hills which according to the AMACI’
of Rs.75,{}0O/ -. Except for margm” al
efihaneefixeiit, the same does not call for interference.
.£*,Qnside1;ing the nature of the injures, the amount awarded
‘ yain and sufi’er.ing is on the lower side and as such a
” »-eum of Rs.10,0{)0/- znequires to be awarded. That apaxt, as
notieeé, since the amount towards medieai expenses and other
A
‘Zr
5
incidenta} expenses requires to be enhanced, marginally a sum
of Rs.10,()0(}/- is awarded under the said heads.
7. The next question however for considere:tiG:{f”ieI’Vx§ith
regard to the nature of income reckoned and : 5:3
reckoned by the AMACI’ for ~
compensation under the head of loss fi1’a:m’ii’-ea
regard, it is noticed that
the natme of injuries, fghe .of”3:;ea1inen.t_AAIIndergone and
the aitlie who treated the claimant
was ezxemined doctor has also deposed with
regard dflciievv of the right lower limb and the
2 in bendingjhe lmee and in this regard, the doctor has
‘ efated to the disability to the limb at ‘?0%. The
the same has come to the conclusion that
sinee doctor has not stated with regard to the disability to
K iv V’ ., fi1e~.jv11o1e body, the conventional method of reckoning 1/3″” of
“name sheuld be adapted. Whiie doing so, though the
has noticed that it would be at 23%, it has reckoned
oniy 20%. Therefoxe, it would be appropriate to reckon 23%,
which would he the percentage of disability to the whole body.
L
‘1
6
8. Insofar as the incnme is concerned, the Claimant had
contended that he was earning a sum of Rs.1,50,0{}0/- p.a.
finm agricultlzre. In this regard, the documents
and P59 viz., the RTC extracts were produced In
addition t9 the agriculture, the had’ ¢c.e.§it;:zi&;=.¢1 that
was doing milk vending business. t1:e_ aI§Sm’icfé;A–..Adf.t_any
document to indicate the incégmg, ‘V
same at Rs.10(}/- per day Rsv}13,000/~ per
month. If the e:vsJ;2{1)”1is3:A1’té(l,_>that he was owning
from the said iands and
accident was of the year 2006,
even on «.:c;£5:::.se;?i1f2tf§§r£:V.e:::7stin1atr:, the amount as nsckoned by
t}:;c:« isV”t}11.t.1__1_§ ‘lower side and it would be appropxiatc to
. fi:1e.:san1e at Rs. 120/ – per day. If that is (10116, the
would be in a sum of Rs.3,6(}O]– and if the
safie fiitaifiplied with the multipiier as adapted by the
V. , the total amount would be in a sum of Rs.7,34,400/-.
of the said amount, since I have already stated the
V’ ‘clisabiiity to be reckoned as 23%, if the said amount is
calculated, it would be in a sum of Rs.1,68,912/–. From the
J!
“2
said amount, a sum of Rs.1,22,400/- already awaI:§iefi”b_y the
AMACT is to be deducted and as such ” pf
Rs.46,5l2/- is required to be paid as _A
under the said head.
9. Therefore, in all,
entitled to the enhanced “Re.6£5,51»2/ —,;;vith interest
at 6% 33.51. firm: the “of realization. The
enhanced 11.16 by the 234
a period of six weeks
from “__’é copy of this order. On such
deposit, released to the claimant.
E51; tf§I1m,S of ebove, the appeal stands disposed efwith
etasts. Sd/__
Judge