Karnataka High Court
Sharad Babu Patil, vs Kushal S/O Kallappa Badiger, on 13 July, 2011
Author: N.Kumar
Bench: N.Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA . CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF JULY.20T1 BEFORE ~~ a 'BLE MR. JUSTICE. N. KUMAR JN M.F.A.NO.244'¢-/2010(MV) A/W MISC.CVL. 104185/2011 | Between: Sharad Babu Patil,. Age major, occ: business 0 8 R/o Modage(Mohanaga) pos! Salamwadr Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belgaum, = °° Owner of Hero'Honda Motor Cycie Bearing novkKA.4 .. Appellant common (By Sri. RaviV. Hosmani,adw)j lappa Badige rS, OCC: private service Pg..And Dist. Belgaum, Age R/o Hone ged an £ filed under Section 173(1) en ee er fon mot RES POEL GP and award dated 20/06! os ee das Pile af on the file of tor Accident Claims No Mise.cvl. LO41 83/2011 is filed under order 41. rule Qo of CPe praying to Stay the judgment and award> lated 29/06/2010
by the Pri. Civil dduge(Sn,Dn} and" My Ac r Belga umn MVC No 2OS8R/ 2006 THis a ppea ioe } wo Misc vl G4 1.85 i 2 ee 4 . pore mr iG oT).
for orders this day, the Court, delivered the following:.
JUDGMENT -
This is an appeal by th e..0 wner of the vehicle challenging the quantum. of co" TnIDENS sation awarded by the Tribunal to~..the injured vin : . motor vehicte accident.
2. The accident ts not in dispute. The nature of injuries sustained if. -the accident is not in dispute. Admitee "dly. the vehicle involved in the accident writ appeal™snot insured. But it belonged to has recorded a tent the. "appel lant. - The Tribuna oA tegori cal tinding that the accident was on account a = bas rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle and thus the claimant has actionable negligence. he injured was SA} Rs.6,500/- per month. [In support of the said craim, he produced Ex.P-14 issued by Shataraj..Concreve Products. But he did not examine the author-of the © Tribunal did net act on the said document... But tock.
'ers 4:
Pi his income at Rs.3,500/- per.month... The evidence on record shows the claimant lost his vision in the right eye and right orbital cavity is-eriptv with eye ball. There is favial disfigurements The disability certificate issued 's h 6 ws 40% 'disability for the whole body. In. act, thes person "who issued disability certificate has been examin ed. Still the Court did not accept at ne, sa rel _evid ence and held 15% as the pe , ma & ne ry tdi s abilit y to the whole body. in those cireunis taiices - it awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.40,800/- towards . medical and ancillary expenses, Rs.10,500/- towards lass 7 of income during the period of treatment, Rs] 07 1 OO. towards loss oF Puture Se be ea ot - ery ae eat eliew os bag Glad ear my ey od ee SRE PRE mcome / permanent disability ar RS.29,000/ - towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness. Thus, in all, a sum of Rs.2,08,400/-. Agerieved™ by the said award, the owner has preferred this appeal.:
ny
3. Learned counsel for the appellant. assailing the impugned award contends; the Tribunai erred in-
taking Rs.3,500/-per month as. the inceme of the claimant, Similarly, treating 15% as the permanent disability to the whole bodvy-is en. thé nigher side. In those circumstances, the award cf compensation is on the hignér.side aad it requires to be reduced.
4. The evidence "on record shows, claimant Was aged. abour 25 years. He has produced doc uin er ts. to i sh ow that he was working with Shat a Faj Con c re fe Produces. Th e fact the he was Workin a ther ein is not cisputed but what is disputed "isthe _monthly Salary because the author of the . certilicate was not examined. The Court has not ary mentioned therein but o bee ey oe on B ony Sat pm Kae pent seal envy tg Tow oy aS dood mel vane ~ ewe dee ee ead pati A iy oe Bes dey joaect ee nas taken inte con Sideration that he was w OFrking in ce By 7 Pa a OF a concrete production unit and he was aged 28 years and the accident having taken place in the vear 2606.
It took his income at Rs.3,500/- per month which is © vs reasonable. Therefore, | do not see any justification t interfere with the said finging of fact. «rhe dector who treated the claimant has opined the disability to an extent of 40%. Bu ith © c oO wrth as. take n ° nly 15% as the permanent dis abilit y : a rid "0 4 this basis, compensation. is award ed. u nd er" the head of loss of future income, The SA i de ppro ac h of the Trib unal is just and no case fer interference is made out. In that view of the matter, theres no merit in this appeal.
cordingly, it "is dismissed. Consequently, MisciCyl. 104 185/201 1 for stay stands dismissed. The a mo un t de p osited by the appellant at the time of : ~prefe rring : this appeal shall be transmitted to the Pri punal forthwith for being paid to the claimant. Sd/-
JUDGE