K N Nagaraju S/O Nagappa vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 24 July, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

K N Nagaraju S/O Nagappa vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 24 July, 2008

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN ms HiGH comm' 05' KARNA'l'AKA AT.i_' .. _
BANGALORE {  k% k

DATED THIS THE 24'1"" DA'x"ﬂF      & L

BEFQR1a;:  T * T

THE H()N'BLE MR. JUs'1'Ic§;}xNA}4;3 

IVHSCELLAN mus FIRS~'.ij'A_ ARi3EAI ;  £3957 A011 2006 (MV)

BE'i'WEEN:_   «

S/0 Nagappa - 1 

K. N. N:1_gg4rve1jV~:.1?i'29§4«:_§gf;::;:"1':§__°  "  V'

Kaggalahal-iiVilii:,ge_.a3:d'"~ f*v--.,   %

Post, Harohalii Hnbfi  . ' '*~ .. ~ 
KanakapuI*&TalukV' _ ' "
Bangaigm DiSi:%i?<:'t' ~ 

.. «.  _{3y" 'SA1:iriE';"Gi1*iII;aliaiﬁ}i;)54dvL>calc)

I. The  Insurance
Com pany Limited

  V. Izggsonax Oﬁice
 _ 44545, Lcu Shopping
 Complex, Residency

 Road, Bangalore-25
" By its Manager

... APPELLANT



tl1e_respo'11tient;

2. Mr. Johnson J. K, Major
to K. M. John
St. Jul1n's. Vallif
Mylasandra, Begur Pest

Bangalore  __   

(Shri. S. V. Hegde Mulkhand, Advoeate for  E. ll" 2

and Notice to Resp0ndent--2 dispensed with)'   =  -- V
$$$$$ , a- , on V

This l'vliseell.aneous First  i__'1le4.l_llt1.r:1d'e_:r""'Section "
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles AC1ww..gga.ins£ the judgement and
award dated l6.02.2G06 paesed 'No. 3275:'-'2.{){"l5 on the
ﬁle of the XIII Additional _St3J,Me:n'her~. Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Court oi.' Small}-.Causes.f_'Mlet3'op¢)litan Area,
Bangalore (SCCH.-~.15la Pert}},% j:a1l'0*.?;l1:g the""evl'-éém petition for
eompensatiun       

This  this day. the Court
delivered..the_'fc}elewé;;,5_:~   ' ll  

= jjﬂj M15 N T
ﬁleafd  for the appellant and the Counsel For

l'  aiapellant while moving on a twwwheeler as a

3"»-'~___l"piA1li0n "I"vi:_l--i:r had sullcrcd injuries as a result at.' the vehicle

 _ 'hav-ingjmel with an aucident.. Even alter treatment; it was found

6



that he suffered from a permanent disability  V.

which was assessed at 60%. He was _t_'n.e oewnejri-eui"h'¥(i:'iVcrofa_ V

torry. And the appeltant having aijiﬁrtiiacﬁeui'  

Accidents Ctaims Tribune}, seekiijgsgcimpensationg.It?i'ei"Fri'bui1a1 i'

has awarded Rs.1,53,4()()f- as'"coit:pensalii)ni"with interest

thereon. It is this which   

3.   iwoiutd submit that the

appei}s,I:£_h;;1d"'~tgti'ti :iai%;!;;tieV1r1 ,t"'r_coinpens:ition on the basis that he

was 4('},--{:)ti't3f-' per month and on that basis

sought 11¢, eo111fiensati'i;-:}._ii..'t' towards disabitiiy and other

 V. A' conyeintioﬁalv heads;«.TheTribunat however has chosen to adopt

 the'inco'me*ot7  appettant at Rs.3,0{}0r'-- and the disability is

atidiessed_i  taking the percentage oi' disability at 15% and

iﬁhas proceeded to compute the compensation white inciuding the

i"av.ra_rd..' of compensation under other conventimial heads.

 _T_}§eret'ore, the Counset would submit that the appellant has

i been denied just and fair compensation. The pereeniage of

$



disahility in relation to the whole body oughl.Wti3-._:l1a\:{e. i

taken at 20%. The Tribunal. having tliat   

would earn only Rs.3,000:'-- is unfair anditis on rt,hie.Io\aier side

and hence, would seek enhaneemientioli ctimpensatiting on that

is '  ii  i  F _ .
basis, while also cc)ntenaiii)g_ tllati VI.h.e-.__'ap'p~el_lant is certainly

entitled to compensatio1:1..V.gn_derheads in lair
amounts     award reasonable
amoanLsV1:n.def'~i,li_i¢;  heads.

 tlne respondent would oppose

the grounds"ofichalillenigeandjwould submit that the burden was , «_ on tlni:.appcl]ant his income and the Fact that he did su.ll¥:r.anyi'inipaim1ent on account of the alleged disability and thatthere waj_;~_;<i1o diminution of income or loss of earning . ' .capacity._i This was not established before the Tribunal. Hence, i "theife 'was no basis for the Tribunal to award any sum towards _al_l3.~.*ged disability. The Tribunal having awarded a substantial sum, though the appellant had not laid the foundation tor such a claim, there is no warrant tor enhancement oi' {lieu i appellant had not established the in§5orii1i4:"th_a't, he though he claimed to be owner and oi' this background, there is no warrarit~ti)r iiilnsolar as the contention that is fniiiiaviiardi,ii_itc)w'ardaiicoiiventional heads is concerned, this has awarded a substantial. pain and suiteriiig which i:is'hurt--ial¥ under other conventional' have been granted in a lesser amount. mt _ll'ilE'.<.l,£i"1'l't.i)iit_.':', the Tribunal having awarded . _ A Rs.vl{t,O()0'r'-- ttiwards,l__QS_{$» ofarnenities, it cannot. be said that the Trib:i;1ai._vha.d'«v1ieg.l_eeted to consider the award of compensation under the cijntraenlicinal heads. Hence, there is no need for i V ._»inlerIi:k=en'e_e.

2 ii a close examination ol.' the matter, firstly, the ' having adopted the pereentage oi" disability of the iiappeitant at l5%, when there was disability t.o the upper limb 8

--;6:--

at 60% is contrary to the estabiished norms.

ought to have been taken at 20% to the whole la'-t~:'i i the income is concerned, though tiie appeiiaiiii. inay. it'ivJi..__l'lEi,\4:fl;3.i produced any material to esta.bii'sh__ the exact inc(>;':ie'VVtl1e,t hell was _ V' :

earning, the Fact that the aeppell:in't,:ih2id piiidticeii rnfaterial to establish that he was engakied_ ai; a own lorry would certainly enti_tle z:tppeliaiit:iit(i_..cl;;iinit he was earning a substantiei iricoimi-"_i;.;;.,_ l1'di\a*iI1g adopted the saine at Rs.3,0ClQ/-- ._was.;iceai"taii'il;,(ii(;§"i;he lower side. In the absence oi' material, it"w4c)iulVdlyetiiiE3e at a higher amount which, in the & (3pi_I1iionoi.' this Claurtwuuid be at Rs.4,500f- atieast which is 21 '1'e2isonable'l i_airioi.mt and if this is applied, alongwith the nerceniage'i'iot'.ie:;disabiIity to the whole body in computing i'v.,Vcompem§i:iti()n towards disability, the appellant would be to an enhanced compensation towards disability at %%i2i«;.t,72,soo;-- instead or Rs.86,000f- and the apptsllant would i also be entitled in loss ofincome for a period of three months at RS,4,.500f!~; in which event; fie would be entitled to an additional 5 amount oi'Rs.l3,5€}0f-. And since the apptsilanl c¢.¥;f[aiI::}3§: :~;uI.'l'cr loss oi.'an1cni[i.cs, ihe ax11t)uni.g?éihlcd i_s¥.on .;':ht;' "i¢1wc:" side? and [he appciianl is cnliiied in an addi:iLis)t1:alV_.sun1 3"0,V('}() G£7-. The apptsllant is ihus cnliiicd [()"éi!1: éét£idiii{)fia3' 613:4.-}pt$n:saii¢:11 of Rs.}.,96,300:'-- with inicré::s~L_at ._z;1)ﬂi1u;11 £.'m1ﬁ dale 01' award. V RV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court