Karnataka High Court
Mr.Bamdev Naik vs Sri Rajendra Baburao Chavan on 20 September, 2011
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
_______________________________________
re1 WX4 AGV IIlSflf'SS idS
:LN dod AGV IIJNd HSIGVDvP 1S '8)
S.LSKICNCXISSd
vvnvmci 'aVON anna
è13 DVSVN ]VNOJSIAIQ Sil H OflOIHJ.
QJa'flO I3MVèIflSSV VIUKI .WiN SRI.
WIV'fl3t1 I{L3dIVA1AV1
ANVdVN(.X) '9 LIVS SS3NTSflB D3( 'NOCY
W SOY
JAVS S VNVSNUè1
YJflVOI3B
CIV( )?J èIVMSO'IèIIN SNS 8 KVF ID DVB?4VH S
NOO9d HIS 'Sfll&IO 9VJflISIAIG Sit
HOflOHI
±ld(fl VONVS A
3']3N13 TNHN3k' 'M( )ISNSIXS Akd
NOOlS III 3SflOH èIVNN VHS 'S ON 00
Oil CO SiN VNflSNI 1VLMSINO 31-li
ViflVO'13S 1510 '? CXL 'IGVM3OVS3eIIH
0/N 4
flfl( fl :3)() 'SèIV3A Zt :.)hj
NV.WHD OVNflSVFI \'NONSrVN INS 'I
:aNv I
r.'cTv a'ivsit c iissici 'is .(gI
a.NV I'lMddV"
4
(C9LUd/tOVWON d331' SKI SC) t
o
eIsN;
SNOIVOMYS 'SliNk) GNOW14DIN
UVON AON NVHOW NVN VPWJ t ON
SSSNJSflS Dan b473$ 9e:aiv
>IVAVN NflCIOVHVE1 )IIVN A3CWVWNII
4
LEhWJ 600tIBCfltVAW NI
4
(nw) I IOt/OtL°N .BOtI0VSw
4 /0
(Aw) 600t/SeStt°M V±TW
mu
VNHJVUVDVNKH 301L9flP'SUW 3'IHJZOH
zuoflB
flOt 'U39W3143S 40 AVG HJOt 3111.91111. U3L
VG
UVJfttIVHU LV HONH LTflOflIO
V31VLVNUV31 SO LUflOD 110
0
TH SHL NI
a
- 4
I
'4%
4
_ s •__
-- _
t3 --
-- -- -- 2 a
I -- ... _ --
-- :.--
-.
2_s
141 I.
• -- --
- .
t
t--• t
I-
•
F'
.12 .4
•2
/
eq
-e
a
••
4
_ sf
I
.b_: .-.
.4 4
-
:-
-
-- I
1.
4-
•
I
-1
AT:fl fl 1k '\t !. VKI ' ;o 1)4 .'o' ' .\t
.RI , Hf. C 'v 'V"%S .r; •%
S PRViEP ! P .Ff IARI i Ki1Th N 14\ ALA \\I. .1 •
AP1'1tL. C TIlr. ! . R1.sI ' . ft Si' f_ V.t.i
" a IT'
THIS 'r'. : Cl" iS-- ' n; fc TiuN 1. UMI.t I u\ 1)1
.\f)MISS1' \ '1IN ! 'i 'II!-.'' a' Ri ;n. ..a\ 1 R
.
Hf. F' iLL' ñ'.
'
I .''
JUDGMENT
REG. MPA.22538/ 2009:-
This appeal is filed by the on ner of the vchirlc assai ling the judgment tied narct passed 1)3 the Addl.\IACT 'it Bailhonal in N1 C No. 1671 :2006 dated 30.04.20 0Q.
2. The ippellants jeep bearing registratIon No. K\ 02 P 3Th3 wa' in.n: in rash znitl negiwent niannei ni 05.02 200t. is resiali of which the I respondent da'niant sustained injurk s and he tiled a claim petit ion sc'eki;j compensation on anous heads.
3. While ;idjudiratnrn the claim petition and awur dina' compensation. the Tribunal directed the owner of the ehk Ic to pa' the c'onmei,sation. Being ;iggneved In the s;aic! direction. the on neT of the rhic1e has preferred this appeal
4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the appe llant and also the learned counsel for respondent I Insurance Coinpan . [ha ; till course "1 sul)rntss,c'n. tI.e 1' :irneel counsel appearn.g foi both the sides submitted that in 'in' of thc Circ ular iss .cd In th ins' iranre Ret'ulator and Deelopment uthorit IIRD.\I. whenever a package pniic3 is isstiecl in respect of T)riate ehicIe, the inmates of the tehicle would b€ statiitoril c-oered. i..ncicr the circumstances. thr submit that the liahiJit has to bc fastened on the insurance c-ornpan so as to indemnif the appellant. ow ner The sul)rrnssion of the lear ned counsel on both .ides is pin. ccl on rec"rd.
5. Hv' ii: re'garci u' tin fact '-hat in respt-' ? .j vehicle in question, which is a jeep. the app ellant, ow net hid taken a package policy €incl haiving reg ard to thr directive issucd b> the IRDA. the 2 - respondent insurance compan is liable to sat ish the iudumc'nt and awa rd tn entir t' anu thereby indenmif the appellant ow ncr .
0. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Parties to hear their own costs. rhe amount in deposit to be refunded to the appellant or his e ninsel after proper verification.
4--
REG. MFA.Crob.7401201 1:-
7. The respondent/claimant has filed cro ss-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
The contention of the learned counsel for the cross-objector/ claimant is that the claimant was a skilled employee. He was working as a lathe machine operator. In support of the sam e, Ex.P-19 was produced. However, the Tribunal has assessed the notional daily income at ?125/- and the monthly income at Z3,750/-.
which is very meager. He also submitted that the award of compensation under the heads pain and sufjèring, conveyance and incidental charges, loss of earnings during the laid up period and loss of amenities are also on the lower side.
Therefore. the compensation may be enhanced on the said.
heads.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / insurance company supporting the quantum of compensation, has stated that the sam e would not call for interference in this appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides.
the point to be considered is:
- I) -
'Whether the claimant/cross-objector is entitled to additional compensation?"
10. It is noticed that the claimant was a skilled employee, as he was working as a Lathe Ma chine Operator b profession. Having regard to the fact that the claimant had sustained injuries to the lower end of tibia and fibula and he had undergone surgery and also had taken follow-up treatment. a sum of ?30.000/- vill have to be awarded tinder the head pain and sufjèring. In the absence of there being any concrete evidence with regard to his sala ry. the notinnuf monthly income can be assessed at 4,00 0/- since the accident occurred in the year 2006. According ly taking into consideration 10% permanent physical disability and by applying the proper multiplier of '14'. compen sation under the head of loss of future earning capacity wou ld be ?67,200, -
fe400/- X 12 X 14,1. The incidental charqe s has to be assessed at ?5,000/-. Similarly, loss of amenities and inconve nience will have to be assessed at ?20000/-. Loss of earnings during the laid up penod for a period of two mo nths would be ?8,000/-. Since there were K-wire screws implanted.
future ¼ O' \\ 1 tO l)c iS5OS5'' i it In ho rt'ult. l, iiun i ru nsssscd as follows:
i) Pan and suffering
30.000:
(Id Mdical expenses and hospital
9 500
oh a r g e s -
(i) Loss of future earnings
1
67200'-
(iv) nrtdental charges
5Q00
Lass of amenities and
25000!-
in con yen en ce
(vi) loss of income during the laid
8 000
up period for a period of two months
(vii) 4 F ure u medical expenses 1 0000'-
TOTAL: 1 .4970D -
Rounded off to 1,50O0O/-
Thu a nil c' mpunSJtloi i 1 .aU.000 inste I
?i 22 000 an ilod by the Frrhund. The enhaneud
-*r 2,ooo(- "
Coml)eIlsati'>n ! Ia.iO sl'ai :u r interest t thu (
h per Jilt 01111 r:n I ldtc ol
-
horn petttiun till rhizarrnn.
In the rusult rho cross obocti on is allowed.
2 resnutidviil tlinioe OO1flcifl\ is direr ted to stisd. the award n iun ol the uJornen1 fl M FA o.22a2a 21i00 connected with this (russ nhection Parties to hear their (mu costs.
-8-Counsel for the respondents are directed to life their power within a period of three weeks from today.
Sd JUDGE RKIC/