Yogesh Kumar M R vs New India Assurance Co Ltd on 2 March, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH. 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUsTzQE"ARAvf m_1j'   

M. F. A. NO11386 20107 . 

BETWEEN :

Yogesh Kumar 
S / 0. Rajashekaraia,1'1j... 
Aged about 32 years'; ._ . - 
R/3 Maha:ie\{apv.1'éi'{P}":&"(V3, _
N€1am3H"§§'d'3fi.E"Ta1£:Ek,i    
BangalUr'e_,  "  ._    .

' -:'  Appellant

    V '  .]

AND:

1 .

4;N"ew Inéiia C0. L1.ci..
V. ' 'D .;Q.'\'.E_l, Vokka-1-igara Sangha
C0';npl4é:»:_, 51" Floor, Hudson Circle.

 ' A 'Bé;r1_gaI01je'5 560 00 1.

 its..Mg':1'ager.

 G1r§sh,'
S/Q'; Chandrappa,

V " N079, Jagasandra.

V' * . _ elamangala.

. Re-:sp0nder1t.s

' ( SYi.MLII1i1'£ljl1. Adv. for Sri. R.Jaip1'akash. Adv. for R4,

Notice to R--2 dispensed with)



i'\J

>i<=i<=l==i<*

This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act. against. the
judgement and award dated 26.03.2007 passed in MVC
i\Eo/1968/2006 on the file of XIV Additional Judge,j"Court of
Small Causes, Member. MACT, Bangalore. (SCCl"ii=~1_V0}_.._ 'partly
allowing the claim petition for cornpensation.~«.~and'_'seelzjng
enhancement. for cornpensation.    .

This appeal coming on for Admi»ss_i;1 till

the date of payment under the following heads 1:

Medical Expenses   ~   
Conveyance 81 nourishm.ent"   V  
Loss of income durir1g"Vt1reatment    2:000/-- V
Loss of amenities'  *   "'V:2O,OOO/--~
Future Medieal"El.U':'*.°°§\°!'

     Rs.1.50.000/-

 

 

6. ____  Et~_is*  award  is assailed in the present
appealfll -_l1ave"flh*e»a1*d":':3_;fi'v----Si'1ripad V.Sastri. learned counsel

for the al)/Dlelvlantlllaxidfl-S1'i Mani Raju learned counsel

 '_ app.eiarlvng on  Rdayaprakash learned Counsel for 15*

 a'€SP0n"l_l/5disability'jtodthe whole body.

In the cross*examii'1at--ion suggerstioiz is made to the doctor

 that«.fissessme'n't._.ot' disability is on the higher side and it has

   the disability that can be accepted

 thel. nature of the injury would be 10% to the

 whole Admittedly the claimant is an agriculturist. who

A ..f»I'.s aged 31}/ears as on the date of accident and on account of

 the injury sustained namely fractures. there would be

 restricted movement of shoulder and elbow and unable to

4/



9

carry on his day to day avoeation as an agriculturist to
certain extent which can be termed as 10% Vdlisability,

(though assessed by the doctor as 15%}. the

same compensation is to be assessed. The__rr'1*¢)nt=hly¢_ incernefl

of the claimant can be held to belaround.  

In the absence of any doeurnen__tarybe\r:i'denc,ei;;fr;,duCe};l.beto':*e
the tribunal loss of _'lass'essing the
disability at 10% shalrbe   3.600/- P61'
annum. As on» the  the age of the

claimant is, 331    multiplier to be

adopted * v:§or!o"'«Vl}ferma.VVand others vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and ano_.t'heVf.rle;;ol:r'teci"in 2009 ACJ pg. 1298, would be 16

and by  'thellsarne the compensation that would be

 themhead loss of future income would be

iteaaisitgsao./p--'((1.6% of 3,000: 300 x 12 x 16}. Thus total

Coni'pen__sation payable under above two headings would be

 in addition to what has been awarded by the

.  Tribunal. In View of the same the following order is passed.

M



ORDER