.. 1 -
1N THE HIGH COUR'I' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15"" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE s.N.sATYANARAyA:;A' ~ 3
M.F.A.NO. 13497 / 2006
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONALc:0NTR0L;,ERis:_S'RT "
SARIGE BHAVAN, _
K.H. ROAD, SHANTINAGAR,' "
BANGALOREWZ7, '
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW C:FE1C=1:1.; " APEELLANT
AND
1. N.cHENNAK,ESHAvA'
s/0.NARAYAN_APA .
AGED ABOUT 22_YEARs"DR1VER
. ,R/ O.(}}';{ATEAKAMADENAE~1ALLY
CFALUK," """ "
V_NOW--.R/AT;NO,251,
P.__C; V£;x'r§;':*Jas1»<5:«:.._
V .
'S=._/0.1-IAY,£_\'I7I-i BAIG
A DRIVER
* 'R./».A1m3Em<.AR NAGAR,
_ TKOLARABANGARPET ROAD,
"K0LAR TOWN. .. RESPONDENTS
4: ‘iayfan : I~I.T.JAGANNATHA, ADV FOR R1}
K/.,»~\
‘mIs MFA IS FILED U/8.173(1) OF MV ACT ACEAENST
‘mIa: JUDGMENT AND AWM{D DATED 25/8/2006 msseo
IN MVC NO.841/02 ON THE FILE OF THE II AI)I_)I.,.CI\;IL’ ,.
JUDGE{SD} & ADDL MACT, KOLAR, Awi5;RI)IIx*§–~ .
coMI>I«:I\ISA’I*IOI\I OF RS.2,08,155/~ WITH INjfI:_iII«;sT.”@4 6%»
RA. FROM THE DA’I’E:”3 01+” $>r«:’;’ITIoN_;*I=IVL.L’ REALISA’}7fION..
THIS APPEAL COMING ON F”€)I{ :5II2AI{I1~Io’~1}ii:s Iiiji,-9I§:I.j
THE COURT DELIVERED TIIlEi.!<'QLLOWING:
JUI)GMe§:I;
This is owner’s appeal conipensation
awarded in MVC.No.841 / lithe , Kolar.
2. The ‘faint 1gI.”V;3;g&’€V’z’1upilIior1 rider on motor
cycle at the time of
accident’whi–ch l3ss’Vt;fa}§eI<I._l:lplaee on 21.9.2000 at about 5.30
p.m.,Vis nota"InV_Vdisp5:,Ite';. it is also not in dispute that said
*–vaceiIlentA—sins €&l.t,ESC0iV'(i'11'C'vt0 rash and negligent driving by the
helonging to 15" respondent/appellant herein.
In filed by the injured, he examined himself
'x__as PW.~~l! 'He also examined an independent witness as PW.2
A ..:f"'the Doctor who treated him as PW.3, produced in all 12
' documents which were marked as Ex.P'l to P12, which
it includes police documents and as well as cloeuments relating
{.z1_:"\s»'\
to the treatment that was given to him. Based on the oral
and documentary evidence available on record the court
below awarded compensation to the claimant. as under:
Loss of income 1,400/~
Food & nutrition 980 / » .
Attendant charges __ol.,..4(_)_(‘)/~ _v
Medical expenses i 4’
Pain & sufferings _ / ~– A ‘
Los of future income it
Teal ?
3. The owner of “contends that the
coiiipenvsation’aivafded court? below so far as loss of
future Vince-me. is on higher side for the
reason thatr<_tl*iev caiciilated taking into account the
permanent disability suffered to the whole body of the
claimant ,at_ A25%, when the rnedical evidence on record
i't!isc'l_osesti1at disability suffered to the injured limb is at
25%';–. Aettording to the appellant, if disability to the limb is
125%, their disability to the whole body cannot be more than
'!3F<5.A'of it 8%. The court below has not looked into the
and has taken the limb disability as disability to the
Li /A. .-'E
-7-
Rs.1,45,1.75/– as agairlati R$.2,08,]55/~ awarded by the
iéourt. below, which he is ent,1’t}ed to mceive with interest at
6% p.a., from the (late of petition till date of realisation. H
Accordingly, the appeal flied by the owner is ail_0wV_fe<f'£_ri~;;.
part.
_fjxJUDGEf