High Court Karnataka High Court

Vishwanatha vs Niranjana Murthy on 10 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Vishwanatha vs Niranjana Murthy on 10 March, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALQRE
DATED THIS Tm: 10TH DAY OF ~ 
PRESENT     
THE HONBLE MR. JUsT1cE"K'.'sRE.ED.}iAié._fi§§<f§7r  V'

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE:"A.bN.VF;NUG.(fi}?Ai;A'vCOWDA'V'

M.F.A–; .N0.739’2 20.04

BETWEEN : W

v1sHwA§kIATHA,’

AGE 2.3_YI’:3ARS«;.; V

s/Q;”RU13T;2g’a.MA§;I.’ _ _ _

R/O¥.__ MATODU. V1LLAGE;–. _ —
HOSADURGA ‘1?-.I”;’£,JK,«..
CHITRADURGA D’;s’rR’1’cT,

NOW R/AT D. No. 5–f31′,~~–”

CEO’. MK. SI-1{VA2~:UMAR.,

1V£AI;:.I., TEMPLE STREET.

« ,sARAs’wAT.H1puRAM,

‘ .009.

” (E5? sR1 ‘C:{VF<1SToPHER NOEL 3: DAKSHAYANI, ADVS)

APPELLANT

AND;?.._

NIRANJANA MURTHY.

S/{). J. JAYAPPA,

AGE: MAJOR;

R/O. GANAPATHY ROAD,
HOLALKERE,
CHITRADURA DISTRICT.

2. JAGADEESI-‘I KUMAR.

S/O. MALLESHAPPAI
AGE: MAJOR;

R/AT MATODU VILLAGE.

HOSADURGA TALUK,

CHITRADURGA DISTRECT.

3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE co..”I§TD’.’.« ._
NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD,;f* ..
MYSORE. _

(BY SR1 B.S. UMESH. ADVOCATE FoRR3}-
(R1 AND R2 ~ SERVED BUT UNR_EJPRESEI”xTTED]

THIS MFA IS F1-IIED Li/S, vI.73.I_iI ‘oi? MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD’ DATDD..;2;1..7.04 PASSED IN
MVC NO.146/Q1 oN…THS FILE OF III ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (SR, .DaN.—}_ &;:MAcfi?, M*rjSoRE;:«PARTLY ALLOWING

THE:”oi;AiMiPf:’1*f9:’:’ioN’iéfon GDMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANQEME’Di’$QF_C’QMPEi\iSATiOi\i.

Ti’IiS *ap;j’eaIE’.:’IS’:fl”eoIT1ing on for hearing this day.
J}, delivered the following:

“»uJUDGMENT …..

1 petitioner Sustained amputation of

left ibvotiiiiga motor vehieie accident. The occurrence of

A theeeeident, negligence of the driver of the offending

A’ “V.e_hic1e and Coverage of insurance for the vehieie are not

in dispute. The appea} pertains only for enhancement of

compensation. #

= >

‘\
“3

2. The petitioner is working as agriciiitiiristi’

lorry cleaner. His income is assessed p._r”ri~…»

The permanent disability is

income loss proportion:a’te__. to woullil

Rs.1,500/~ pm. The total ‘:iVI1.c?’OZ1i€ los.sl_:’proVj§3ortio1iate

would be Rs.3;2>ii;O_O(l_/Q’at {§'{.siv;’l’;5bOO/w{income} x

l2(months) X .},8[mu1′”tip»lieri};’ is granted a
sum oi’_..fi and agony,
of amenities and fiztziire
diSCOIl’1f’CIff[” Vaiid iVRs.:’l”_;ev54O,0O0/W is granted towards

artfifittial liITib’~..ai1d’l,tS replacement from time to time.

» is granted towards medical and incidental

‘-exp-enses’;.. R=sV.l5,OOO/– towards loss of income during

laid laeriod. in all, the petitioner is entitled for total

2 ncIlo;ripe’nsai,i(>ii of Rs.6,54,000/– as against. Rs.54,l50/–

diaidiiarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced

compeiisatiori, the iiitei*esi. payable is at 6% pa. from

the date of the petition till paymeiit. The entire

i/

4

compensation shall be paid to the petiti–o.nef

provision for deposit. The appeaibis aiiowedv i:t’1*. part, £151″.

the terms indicated above.