Sri Ashok vs Sri Sidrama on 18 July, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ashok vs Sri Sidrama on 18 July, 2008

Bench: Ashok B.Hinchigeri

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAI<.a~--.'.' " 

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD_  

DATED THIS THE 13th bAY..()_ff' JULY;   

Barrow':-.
THE HON'BLE MR Jus'ric:E__Asi§IoI{ :3.Hi!§(i§;;a3£;Ri

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A_:%f:¥>EAL..;~zo.2*i«i5k/  

BETWEEN:

SR} ASHOK 3/ 0. 'SEDRA3: WAD;EYAR;' - ..

AGE: 29 YEARS, €,'f3C: fvE.ILK SUPPLEE baovz--.N1L

R/O Kanaewmg, No;'.H'»..'_i_" .g'ANDH1NAGAR,
BELGAUM"590f0_1.6.    *  ..APPELLAN'l'

(BY s7R:%'iaA.0?Ape §J§§§'i1;§refm,Ki§iAﬁNUR, ADV. )

AND:

1. ' $121 SIDRAMA,
 Vg::<IANNAI>Pa.1~HUCHANNAVAR,

« AGE_MAJ(JR(CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN)

 ' 'ace; AGRICULTURE,
 R'/0 AEANIBALVAD VILLAGE,

V TALUK' LCHIKOD: 591 201.

 BELGAUM 590 016.

 .2. T};fE---i3RANCH MANAGER,

' 'm--1E UNITED INDIA INSURANCE co. 1313.,

" --..'FHf<?0UGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,

MARUTHI GALLI,
BELGAUM 590 016. .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SR1 SI-{ARANAPPA S. KOLIWAD F OR B.C. SEETHARAMA RAG, ADV. FOR R2. R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH ) 'cxa ims TI-ib¢:; n,aIi_. in MVC 190.614] 2007. 11/02/2007, the appeiant sutrmd multiple of gicvous nature. The Tribunal awanicd TI-IIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS "F.'i'E,._E!) UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF' MV ACT AG;'iIEii«Sf'F--..,_"F}%iE"« JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.12.2003?' PASSED IN MVC NO.614/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE..II.,..éII)DITIONAL ., CIVIL JUII)GE(SR.DN) AND AODITIOMI. MA<;:'r,'~ --I'3I«:LOAuI'vI PARTLY ALLOWING THE c;LAIIy;' ; I'>E'I*IfI"IO'IsI., FQRA' COMPENSATION AND SEEKING, E1_'€i"~§ANC--E_1\€EE4.T'v 'i?Q'R..

COMPENSATION. ' THIS MIsCELLANEOUS""I<:§II+IST AP'I>EAL -COIMIIIIG ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,_ _THE.._.cOUmf,_AOI3:I.IvERED THE FOLLOWING: "

the mspondcnf No.21"    I
2. This    against the juclmeni

'awamI'IIIéat:aI 27, I2.2OO7"passccI by the II Additional Civil Oivisgon) and Additional Motor Accident a the mad trams: accident on Kerur Chikodi HBH.

f sjibmits that the Tribunal has erred in taking the percentage as 10. When the Doctor ..1t:}_.atidn¢to the limb, the Tribunal ought to have taken the = wh51e body disability as 13%. The appc31a11t's main u pégxicvancc is that the Tribunal has taken his income to be 3 compensation of 138,680/~ names. Its breakup is as foklowsz Rs.

1. Mental agony, pain and L- 3 V sutfeﬁngs 30,_G©0«QC

2. Medical and incidental cygpgnges _-- u 'V

3. Loss ofincomc during .3 ' period@ Rs.240()/-- pe1'._m'o1_1th 9,v6_OO'~-00

4. Loss offutum incomeféildng V. . V disability at 10%; '4e6_,080{00

5. Future medic.'a.1.":r%xpt§:I1s;sL'. ~« I 5,000~00 A j?" % : 1,05,68o~0o

4.T the learned counsel for the a3'$ésv-€€:5d the pexmanent physical disability at 45% in £514.

yriibuaai 45300/o.

'P3:.e_4'evi£:ie11ce of the Doctor, who has not treated ' to be considered cautiously and with ,eiit:'ii1ij$'peet:ion. That is what the Tribunai has done and I ﬁnd any fault with what the Tribunal has done. 4 8O/-- rupees a day, though he was daring milk vending business on a big scale.

5. Sri. Kannur also points out that the not awarded any amounts towards the loss_ and loss of past income for the laid up perieafi. "if. .A

6. Sri Sharanappa S. Kciiwaii 'f91?._S1'1' Rao the learned counsel for»Txespoiide:x1t.No.2 , taking of the iiiliicﬂs a day is reasonable iuibmiis that Doctor Satish ibevagoudd' the one who has iii-aaiiecit the» 'A to him, the disability by the Doctor. That is why the £814.

V -ts, for long Ema, unable to walk long A sit cmsscd legged, 11:: has dmn was in

--' on the Imcvan surfaces, climbing and lifting' '

7. Hewevcr, considering that the appeﬂa young and able bodied man of 28 years atV _ accident and that he was doing; deem it necessary to take day. Taking the disability his amounts towazﬂs are m be computed as_fco:i;l%cmfrs:

%%%% 16"x 1"{i/ 1ocs5'},5oo/-

8. towards the loss of pwt iaqognqe is '"Rs.9,§pc/- to Rs.12,000/- taking his as was done by the Trmmal.

V . 9. "§t on mean! that the appeﬁant 'm ﬁ.EH.

10. Considering thcsc aspects of the it deem it necessary to award a sum of Rs.10,0(§Q[ the loss of amenities.

1 1. Now the siaaas M . m;.% j

1. Pain arafi'.-é;:;_.ﬁ"::'x~'::ig:?' "3Q,om/- .... the * 4. 57,6oq-

10,0001- expcnscs 5,001]-

Total 1,29,60(¥ -

A. , '12". The amounts of Rs. I,29,60{)/- am rourdcd of to ' i';3€),(){)0/ -(Rupees One laid: and thirty thousandonly). £834.

AA ..

13. The amounts awamted/enhanced hmgin 1361- anzmrn; "

also cany interest at the rate of institution of the clam' petition the .d«atc' <h)'t"? 1~=%.Thc oﬁcc to d;~aw"§;1.p*t;-;e nio:1:1ﬁe::d_ 'mm: %s-- : ' of this judgment

15. No order as to costs.

3. Koliwad the mned counsel for Iespogxcicnf' = to fike vakalth in one wdp1t's.ﬁme. ~ I Sd/-

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court