High Court Karnataka High Court

Vijay Dattatraya Nangare vs Prakash Narayan Kudachikar on 18 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Vijay Dattatraya Nangare vs Prakash Narayan Kudachikar on 18 March, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA:<A,  ~ 

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD *..

DATED THIS "rag 13"' DA__Y..Q__F' MA;RCH',;2i§ 69V'_'   V

PRESEN: =*%' é  
THE HOIWBLE %éR.3'i3_$'¥TICE §<;:..i.r»1;agr~zJ;',[L2';%.:i;m~--1k. 

THE HOWBLE MR'.%1_ius11c:§k}§.'re_;j%a$§AsAMoHAN DAS
MISCELLANESUS A FIRST AP§§:LEA';°N§i';.§'93.2[2004(My)
BETWEE¥'é  '%       
VI3A':' DATTA*r:i:;§m$§ NAia%{;A§MEL :2 
AGE:36"\'R,S'j;'   
OCCi..MA__SOl'%i' {.AI_PRss,Emf Mia.)
R/O GAhii}HIa'\£AGAR"'   
c:-;Ar«:m;Au.    :APPELLANT

(35,; 3:21. A:R';:=;§*:*iL, ADV.)

  

I    P§£AKASH"NARAvAN KU DACHIKAR

 AGE:%m;3oR
 c:_V«:c;,-swsmass
R/g: GA£\iA?AT GALLI, AT sumee (HImAi..AGA)
TQ & 9:57 BELGAUM

AA  (OWNER OF BAJAJ CfisLIBER MfC KA-22/LA-7487)

"'r<-3' 

THE QIVZSIONAL MANAGER
NEW ENDIA AS$URANCE CO LTD

CLUB RGAD, BELGAUM

(PQLICY ISSUING BRANCH I, CHAMPA BUILQIG
KHADE BAZAR, BELGAL¥¥'4) IflSU§§§ OF BA]/U

'ax



CALIBER M/C KA~22/L-7487 UNDER PQLICY T ,
N0.6'?1101/31/25336 VALID FROM 31.S.01..TQ:"««_¢_ 
39.5.02

) ‘ ‘ ‘ ”

(BY SRI.VISHWANATH.S.SHETffi§R,,.A9V. _–?OR’* .

THIS APPEAL :5 men U/s ::?3{_1)L’% O_F”.VMVV’V5CT 7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT ANo%J%=AwfATRb GATED; 26.434

PASSED {N we NO.18OS[{)2 O¥\§_THE FILEOF’ THE”*IIip

Aom. czvn. JUDGE (sa.1.}%}*ts»rg.) Si ._Af4A(Z”}”,””~,VE5’Ei_GAiJM;’
sEEK;N<a ENHANCEMENT OF CQ_§*iP_EVNSATIéQN'. ;

"ms APPEAL c§f5;4i:;~a::'sL+<§::$.gi '%+{E%\.RING THIS DAY,
NAGAMOHAN ms 3., ;:;E;;IvEREp 'E"¥*{E"F(3-!;LOWING: –

X [ ~ jT4'%%%Vj:;1;LgM£;sMENT
Th"i's.__4apvpVéa_i ":i:i:§ie§:ted against the Judgment and

Aw:§&r;1dated"'1s;a§_,é¢4 in we No.1805!02 passed by the

I j:1ILLV;=az1}c:§.,%<:£f%va;Judge (Sr. an.) & Add¥. MACT, Belgaum, in

" ~.s6–..faE'a§;«.\£t~j,'ré¥ai:es to inadequate compensation awarded

b§".4"the"~-V%t&'.rii:'i;znai.

It is not £1″: dispute that appeiiant was a maaon

the time of accident. The Tribunai had taken Rs.60/-

” ;::er day as the earning of the appefiant. Even an_

§R»~

agrictfiterei iebeurer earns Rs.1£30/-» per day asvV.r%::i4:é§§.rjr:urn

wages. Therefore, the reasoning of the

appeéient was earning Rs.60/– per day $5…L:_A{a’e¢C:ef}taA¥3Ee”fie

es. in the facts ane circumstanefes :e.f tjhi’eebC:e$e: ‘

regard to the nature of wo:’£<4__t%1af"th;'e appeif*e*Vet:'_yea§;

at the time of accident, we'V'f'e{< e the V%¥i§:i:ini'erfiV;earnEng of
the appeilant as one '<A)fe«a;5';;.K<;uie.e'r3i: Fie.1G0/- per
eey. Consequentiy, e~fii§i£'Sed for additional
compensatien"ef1"R.s£3SC;®b/Q head of '£055 of

earning ciee A

T§ié':'j'V"e*§fid.eV_fnee"_._e£1 record diecioses that the
appeiiarVrxi:'<–.._VhevdVV' :~__1.:V¥'s'7e%e{'in' 20% disabiiity on account of

ef h'ie""ieg.,…«The Tribune: meet the head 'iess ef

';e:7:e:*:§.f?;§esv'«ve.éiftaé omy awardeé Rs.5,0€}G/~. when the

. 'xa':p';;el§.eeufj?§e'€§V'Suffered permanent disabiiiey of fracture and

he4%k§;'f;§A:eg5'ard is his nature of wcrk, we are of the epinien

itfieg, en this count cf Sass ef amenities, the appeiiant is

A 'er§st'AiAt¥ed to another sum of Rs.2G,0B£I.I/-.

a-«~"

For the reasons stated abcve, the fo3iow%n.’g’A:VV»_: ”
0RDEg….

The appeal is §3artiYVaE!§>weVi€i;._:V””–. V V _ _

The impugned awarc’:l’v’VL’::T,:é_iss ed date c£
16.94.84 £9′: we %éAg%%ne;e5y ‘A:;aV’3a€3ii'”:ed by
awarding total’ com;::§-‘_:nv}3.’.’«::f;t§’é7′:ffiV’» .«:?*.L§.v;i.;;__9 ;800/~ in piace of
Rs.1, 19,8G_§3,’/?};.L ‘A?s(v’%;rd “éiii …of392ér aspects, remafiws
intact. arneunt shat! carry
‘§..é%fia’ inEn§ 35% other asflects the
impfigfiedAvéjfiAI.L;”a}*r;é.:§:§1~§{‘undisturbed.

. _. L Gr4{iI1.=:.rf e::i’ aficéffiiééfiiy.

“:1 Vnufla-uF\aJl–

sac*