Karnataka High Court
Sri Suresh Kumar S/O D Jayadevan vs Shri Sandeep Samboji Rao Jaglap on 13 February, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 13*'? day of February 2009
:BEFORE: _ _
THE I-{0N'BL.E MRJUSTICE : .,
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No. 10836
BETWEEN :
Sri Suresh Kumar,
S/o Ddayadevan, " _
Aged about 30 years, '
No.18, R.X.Road, Benson Ro_ad',~_
Bangalore - 560 046." A_ " '
~ - 2 ' ...Appel1ant
{By )
AN 9\w~ & M
1.Rae Jaglap, RajcVadi,"Purzgmd'ata Taluk, V _ _P11n6*D_iStIfi£}t, 'Maharashtra.
Co. Ltd., _ _r6:pi;._3i)y its Manager, " a Na_.%2--EL.._ Llrzity Building Axmexe, NEiS$iG'f9{R0ad, Bangalore-560 002. . . L' ' ...Resp0ndents ( By Sri A.K.Bhat, Advocate for R-2. ) '_ _ ._ Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section .__ i73(1) of the M.V.Act against the judgment and award dated 23.6.2006 passed in M.V.C.No. 3022/2002 on the file of the XI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACI', Metropolitan Area, Bangalore {SCCH '~ _ had' * No.12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement _'~ --. ' pf compensation.
This appeal coming on fez"
court delivered the following -.
JUD&Mfiii9 %Yg Heard the None
appeared for 1252, and¥_l§f has remained absent. é
2. The ewerded by the Tribunal is on the gonad that the «:_)1V'i'..thex-~'1ower side particularly because, awarded under the head of loss of capacity, having regard to the medical evidence an iecord.
__ 'Ti'§e lwmed counsel for the appellant, referring to 5 medical evidence, submitted that the disability ' 'V " has been put at 40% for the whale body by P.W.2 Dr.S.Rajanna and in addition to that, the amenities lost by the claimant are also spoken to by the doctor in his evidence and having regard to the fact that the claimant is a driver by occupation, the ~ ought to have awarded eompensafion underjtheil loss of future earning capacity. .
4. In the light of the a'tx3ve._Vsu1imieeiensv: L. carefully verified the medica1 : 'e$zfitle;f1ce.'attclv'iac:tiording to the dector, examinetltisfl "appellant suffered blunt pelvis, fracture ef-ttte acetebulum and 76 c11f;s..deepf:' wound. Apart from this, 'foef1d wasting of right thigh muselee' .3 fight leg muscles by 2 ems, é_ of 'lefi..___p11bic bone, shortening of the right ' tlewer lilnitation of the movements of the right of the right knee by 40% and all these the claimant unable to walk like a normal A Q} and he cannot run, cannot lift Weight and carmot '' lsit cross legged or squat and cannot climb stairs witheut help and, therefore, the doctor has epined that the disability is 40% for the whole body. fir'
5. Taking into account the above evidence of tha doctor and cccupation of the claimant, I am of that the Tribunal ought to have awarded under the heaé of loss of vfirlliéh V' ' amount will work out to Rs.2, V68,:$:§Q{§/-- monthly earnings at Rs.3~,;$E30/- V. théw' appropriate mu1tip1ir:i'~.1é_6 12 «i{'4{}'/100).
6. The will get enhanceclg. .4 enhanced amount will ' of the Tribunal is allowed in part sat-'r Judge