R Ishwaramma @ Eshwaramma W/O Nagabhushana Vs B v Narahari S/O K Venkatappa

1 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB

MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶10

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101686 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶11

C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101685 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101687 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101688 OF 2016 (MV-D) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101689 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101690 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101691 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102103 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102104 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102105 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102106 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102107 OF 2016 (MV-I) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102108 OF 2016 (MV-) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102109 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶12

Digitallysigned byJAGADISH TR JAGADISHT R Location:HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKADHARWADBENCH

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI.

¶15

REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LEMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020.

¶16

… COMMON APPELLANT

¶17

(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

IN MFA NO.101686 OF 2016

¶19

1. MANJEGOUDA S/O THIMMEGOUDA,

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB

¶22

MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶23

AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: C/O: GONEBEEDU VILLAGE, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDENT AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶24

B.V.NARAHARI S/O K.VENKATAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRI. MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 13^TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, 3^RD PARALLE ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶27

IN MFA NO.101685 OF 2016

¶28

MADHAN H.S. S/O SURESH, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER WORK (NOW NIL), R/O: C/O: HALLIBAILU-MULUBAGILU, THEERTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDENT OF MARUTHI NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶29

B.V.NARAHARI S/O K.VENKATAPPA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRI.MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 13^TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD,

¶30

3^RD PARALEE ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶33

IN MFA NO.101687 OF 2016

¶34

SATHISHGOUDA S/O EREGOUDA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL AND COOLI, R/O: C/O: GONEBEEDU VILLAGE, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDENT AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶37

B.V.NARAHARI S/O K.VENKATAPPA, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRI. MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 13^TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, 3^RD PARALLE ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶40

IN MFA NO.101688 OF 2016

¶41

R. ISHWARAMMA @ ESHWARAMMA W/O NAGABHUSHANA, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING, R/O: C/O: NEAR WATER TANK, J.C.R. LAYOUT JAGULUR, JAGULUR TALUK, NOW RESIDENT AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶42

B.V. NARAHARI S/O K.VENKATAPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRI. MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 13^TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, 3^RD PARALLE ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶45

IN MFA NO.101689 OF 2016

¶46

PUNEETHKUMAR N. S/O NAGABHUSHANA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: C/O: WATER TANK, JCR LAYOUT, JAGALUR, JAGALUR TALUK, NOW RESIDENT AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶47

B.V. NARAHARI S/O K. VENKATAKPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRI. MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 13^TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD,

¶48

4 -

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB

¶50

MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶51

3^RD PARALLE ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶52

…RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶54

IN MFA NO.101690 OF 2016

¶55

SHRIDHAR N. S/O NAGABHUSHANA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: C/O: WATER TANK, JCR LAYOUT, JAGALUR, JAGALUR TALUK, NOW RESIDENT AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶56

B.V.NARAHARI S/O K. VENKATAKPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRI. MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 13^TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, 3^RD PARALLEL ROAD, VINOBA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶57

…RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶59

IN MFA NO.101691 OF 2016

¶60

SHRINIVASALU @ SHRINIVAS S/O VENKATESHALU, @ VENKATESHAPPA @ VENKATESHWARALU, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: C/O: DANDINAKURUBARAHATTI VILLAGE, TQ and DIST: CHITRADURGA, NOW RESIDENT AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶61

B.V.NARAHARI S/O K. VENKATAKPPA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SHRI.MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA, 13^TH CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, 3^RD PARALLE ROAD, VINOBHA NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶62

…RESPONDENTS

¶63

5 -

¶64

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶65

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶66

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT DATED 29.02.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT RANEBENNUR IN MVC NOS. 736/2014, 735/2014, 737/2014, 738/2014, 739/2014, 740/2014 AND 741/2014 BY ALLOWING THE APPEALS AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE STATED ABOVE CONSEQUENTLY THE CLAIM PETITIONS AGAINST THIS APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED AND PASS SUCH OTHER ODDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶67

IN MFA NO.102103 OF 2016

¶68

MADAN H.S., S/O SURESH AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, NOW NIL, R/O: HALLIBAILU-MULUBAGILU TQ: THIRTHAHALLI, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA, NOW AT MARUTHINAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115.

¶69

…APPELLANT

¶70

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶71

IN MFA NO.102104 OF 2016

¶72

MANJEGOUDA S/O THIMMEGOUDA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, NOW NIL, R/O: GONEBEEDU, TQ: BHADRAVATHI, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA, NOW AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581115.

¶73

…APPELLANT

¶74

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶75

IN MFA NO.102105 OF 2016

¶76

SATHISHGOUDA S/O EREGOUDA

¶77

6 -

¶78

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB

¶79

MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶80

AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRI and COOLIE, NOW NIL, R/O: GONIBEEDU, TQ: BHADRAVATHI, DIST: SHIVAMOGGA, NOW AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶81

…APPELLANT

¶82

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶83

IN MFA NO.102106 OF 2016

¶84

R. ISHWARAMMA @ ESHWARAMMA W/O NAGABHUSHANA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING WORK, NOW NIL, R/O: NEAR WATER TANK, JCR LAYOUT, JAGALUR, NOW AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR DIST: HAVERI.

¶85

…APPELLANT

¶86

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶87

IN MFA NO.102107 OF 2016

¶88

PUNEETHKUMAR N., S/O NAGABHUSHANA AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, NOW NIL, R/O: NEAR WATER TANK, JCR LAYOUT, JAGALUR, TQ. JAGALUR, NOW AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶89

…APPELLANT

¶90

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶91

IN MFA NO.102108 OF 2016 SHRIDHAR N., S/O NAGABHUSHANA AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, NOW NIL, R/O: NEAR WATER TANK, JCR LAYOUT, JAGALUR, TQ: JAGALUR, NOW AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT

¶92

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶93

7 -

¶94

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB

¶95

MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶96

IN MFA NO.102109 OF 2016

¶97

BETWEEN:

¶98

SHRINIVASALU @ SHRINIVAS S/O VENKATESHALU @ VENKATESHAPPA @ VENKATESHWARALU, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, NOW NIL, R/O: DANDINKURUBATAHATTI, TQ: and DIST: CHITRADURGA, NOW AT VIDYANAGAR, RANEBENNUR, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶99

…APPELLANT

¶100

(BY SRI. G.S. HULMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶101

AND:

¶102

B V NARAHARI S/O K VENKATAPPA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O: SRI. MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA 13^TH CROSS, 60FT ROAD, 3^RD PARALLEL ROAD, VINOBANAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA, TQ and DIST: SHIVAMOGGA-577201.

¶103

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580020.

¶104

…COMMON RESPONDENTS

¶105

(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶106

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS FILED U/SEC. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO, A.CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR, B.MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED JUDGE IN MVC NOS. 735/2014, 736/2014, 737/2014, 738/2014, 739/2014, 740/2014 AND 741/2014, DATED 29.02.2016 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶107

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶108

8 -

¶109

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶110

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶111

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard together and disposed off by this common judgment.

¶112

2. All these appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 29.02.2016 passed in MVC Nos.735 of 2014 to 741 of 2014 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Ranebennur¹ , relating to same accident.

¶113

3. MFA Nos.101685/2016 to 101691/2016 are filed by the insurance company questioning the liability on the ground that the offending vehicle had no permit to ply in the area, where the accident had occurred and also on the ground of not considering their contention of contributory negligence.

¶114

4. The claimants, who are the appellants/injured in MFA Nos.102103/2016 to 102109/2016, are before this Court praying for enhancement of compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident that

¶115

1 ‘Tribunal’, for short

¶116

9 -

¶117

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶118

occurred on 20.05.2014 involving lorry bearing registration No.KA-14/A-8318 and Bus bearing registration No.KA-14/B155.

¶119

5. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, where one of us was a member, disposed off MFA No.101684/2016 c/w MFA No.102102/2016 relating to the same accident, wherein the insurance company had raised the same contention raised herein, was considered and rejected vide judgment dated 15.02.2024. Hence, in terms of judgment dated 15.02.2024 passed in MFA No.101684/2016 c/w MFA No.102102/2016 referred to supra, the appeals filed by the insurance company are rejected .

¶120

Reg: Quantum of compensation

¶121

6. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the accident on 20.5.2014 involving lorry bearing registration No.KA-14/A-8318 and Bus bearing registration No.KA-14/B155, resulting in various injuries sustained by the appellants/injured. The claimants/injured are before this Court

¶122

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶123

in the aforesaid appeals praying for enhancement of

¶124

compensation.

¶125

7. In MFA No.102103/2016 (MVC No.735/2014),

¶126

the claimant-Madan H.S. was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident and was a driver of Lorry bearing registration No.KA-14/A-8318. As per Ex.P16-Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of radius of right forearm, fracture of tibia and fibula with patella and fracture of metatarsal of right leg. PW9-doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 42%, however, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 12%, which is on the lesser side. 1/3^rd of 42% disability to a particular limb would be 14%, which could be considered as whole body disability of the injured. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured at Rs.8,000/per month, which is on the lower side. The claimant examined the employer as PW12, who has deposed that the injuredMadan was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. Ex.P22-Driving License indicates that the claimant/injured was having license to drive heavy goods vehicle. Taking note of evidence of PW12

¶127

11 -

¶128

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶129

coupled with Ex.P22-DL and also his avocation as driver, we deem it appropriate to re-assess the income of the injured at Rs.12,000/- per month as against Rs.8,000/- per month. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant at 21 years and applicable multiplier of 18. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.3,62,880/- (Rs.12,000 x 12 x 18 x 14%) towards loss of future income due to disability.

¶130

8. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-

¶131

towards pain and suffering and Rs.9,000/- towards medical expenses, which in our view is just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant has sustained three fractures and he was an inpatient in the hospital for 2 months. Taking note of the same, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges as against Rs.18,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period as against Rs.4,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the

¶132

12 -

¶133

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶134

claimant would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads:

¶135

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.3,62,880/-
2.	Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	Rs. 36,000/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 50,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 50,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	Rs. 9,000/-
6.	Food, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance etc.	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.5,32,880/-

¶136

Thus, in all, the claimant-Madan would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.5,32,880/- as against Rs.2,98,360/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶137

9. In MFA No.102104/2016 (MVC No.736/2014),

¶138

the claimant-Manjegouda was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident and was doing business, earning Rs.15,000/per month. As per Ex.P23-Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of pubic bone, fracture of L4 and L5 vertebra and fracture of scapula of left side. PW9-doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 38%, however, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 9% which is on the lesser

¶139

13 -

¶140

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶141

side. 1/3^rd of 38% disability to a particular limb would be 13%,

¶142

which could be considered as whole body disability of the injured. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. No cogent or acceptable document is placed on record to establish the avocation and income of the injured. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the avocation and income of the injured, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014 would normally assess notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month, taking note of the

¶143

income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative document to establish the income of the injured, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income of the injured at Rs.7,500/- p.m., taking

¶144

note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA. There is no dispute with regard to age of the injured at 42 years and applicable multiplier of 14. Thus, the claimant would be

¶145

14 -

¶146

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶147

entitled to Rs.1,63,800/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 14 x 13%) towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.90,720/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶148

10. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, which in our view is just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant has sustained three fractures and he was an inpatient in the hospital for 15 days. Taking note of the same, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges as against Rs.13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.22,500/- towards loss of income during laid-up period as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads:

¶149

15 -

¶150

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB

¶151

MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶152

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.1,63,800/-
2.	Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	Rs. 22,500/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 50,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 30,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Food, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance etc.	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,01,300/-

¶153

Thus, in all, the claimant-Manjegouda would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,01,300/- as against Rs.1,76,720/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶154

11. In MFA No.102105/2016 (MVC No.737/2014),

¶155

the claimant-Sathishgouda was aged about 34 years at the time of the accident and was doing agricultural work, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As per Ex.P30-Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of tibia and fibula of right leg and fracture of patella of right knee. PW9-doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 40%, however, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 10%, which is on the lesser side. 1/3^rd of 40% disability to a particular limb would be 13%,

¶156

which could be considered as whole body disability of the injured. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured

¶157

16 -

¶158

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶159

at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. No cogent or acceptable document is placed on record to establish the avocation and income of the injured. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the avocation and income of the injured, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014 would normally assess notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month, taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative document to establish the income of the injured, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income of the injured at Rs.7,500/- p.m., taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant at 34 years and applicable multiplier of 16. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,87,200/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 16 x 13%) towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.1,15,200/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶160

17 -

¶161

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶162

12. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-

¶163

towards pain and suffering and Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses, which in our view is just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant has sustained two fractures and he was an inpatient in the hospital for two months. Taking note of the same, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges as against Rs.13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.22,500/- towards loss of income during laid-up period as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, claimant is entitled to modified compensation on the following heads:

¶164

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.1,87,200/-
2.	Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	Rs. 22,500/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 30,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 40,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	Rs. 8,000/-
6.	Food, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance etc.	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,12,700/-

¶165

18 -

¶166

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶167

Thus, in all, the claimant-Sathishgouda would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,12,700/- as against Rs.1,79,200/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶168

13. In MFA No.102106/2016 (MVC No.738/2014),

¶169

the claimant- R Ishwaramma was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident and was doing tailoring work, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As per Ex.P35-Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of pubic rami, fracture of medial mallelous of left leg and fracture of patella of left knee. PW9-doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 40%, however, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 10% which is on the lesser side. 1/3^rd of 40% disability to a particular limb would be 13%, which could be considered as whole body disability of the injured. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. No cogent or acceptable document is placed on record to establish the avocation and income of the injured. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the avocation and income of the injured, this Court

¶170

19 -

¶171

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶172

and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the

¶173

year 2014 would normally assess notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month, taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative document to establish the income of the injured, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income of the injured at Rs.7,500/- p.m., taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant at 42 years and applicable multiplier of 14. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,63,800/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 14 x 13%) towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.1,00,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶174

14. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.11,000/- towards medical expenses, which in our view is just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant has sustained three fractures and she

¶175

20 -

¶176

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶177

was an inpatient in the hospital for several days in different hospital. Taking note of the same, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges as against Rs.13,000/awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.22,500/- towards loss of income during laidup period as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads:

¶178

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.1,63,800/-
2.	Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	Rs. 22,500/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 50,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 40,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	Rs. 11,000/-
6.	Food, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance etc.	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,12,300/-

¶179

Thus, in all, the claimant-Ishwaramma would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,12,300/- as against Rs.1,87,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶180

21 -

¶181

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶182

15. In MFA No.102107/2016 (MVC No.739/2014),

¶183

the claimant-Puneethkumar was aged about 24 years at the time of the accident and was doing private work, earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As per Ex.P41-Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of right femur and fracture of right radius of forearm. PW9-doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 42%, however, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 10%, which is on the lesser side. 1/3^rd of 42% disability to a particular limb would be 14%, which could be considered as whole body disability of the injured. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured at Rs.6,000/per month, which is on the lower side. No cogent or acceptable document is placed on record to establish the avocation and income of the injured. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the avocation and income of the injured, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014 would normally assess notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month, taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors

¶184

22 -

¶185

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶186

including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative document to establish the income of the injured, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income of the injured at Rs.7,500/- p.m., taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant at 24 years and applicable multiplier of 18. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 18 x 14%) towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.1,29,600/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶187

16. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, which in our view is just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant has sustained two fractures and he was an inpatient in the hospital for two months. Taking note of the same, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant

¶188

23 -

¶189

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶190

charges as against Rs.13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum

¶191

of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.22,500/- towards loss of income during laid-up period of three months as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads:

¶192

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.2,26,800/-
2.	Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	Rs. 22,500/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 35,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 40,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Food, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance etc.	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,59,300/-

¶193

Thus, in all, the claimant-Puneethkumar would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,59,300/- as against Rs.2,00,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶194

17. In MFA No.102108/2016 (MVC No.740/2014),

¶195

the claimant-Shridhar was aged about 21 years at the time of

¶196

24 -

¶197

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶198

the accident and was doing private work, earning Rs.15,000/per month. As per Ex.P47-Wound Certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of humerus and fracture of femur with patella of left leg. PW9-doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 40%, however, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 10% which is on the lesser side. 1/3^rd of 40% disability to a particular limb would be 13%, which could be considered as whole body disability of the injured. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured at Rs.6,000/per month, which is on the lower side. No cogent or acceptable document is placed on record to establish the avocation and income of the injured or with regard to his study. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the avocation and income of the injured, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014 would normally assess notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month, taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any

¶199

25 -

¶200

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶201

corroborative document to establish the income of the injured, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income of the injured at Rs.7,500/- p.m., taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant as 21 years and applicable multiplier of 18. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.2,10,600/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 18 x 13%) towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.1,29,600/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶202

18. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.9,000/- towards medical expenses, which in our view is just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant has sustained two fractures and he was an inpatient in the hospital for two months. Taking note of the same, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges as against Rs.13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities as against

¶203

26 -

¶204

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶205

Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of

¶206

Rs.22,500/- towards loss of income during laid-up period of three months as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads:

¶207

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.2,10,600/-
2.	Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	Rs. 22,500/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 35,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 40,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	Rs. 9,000/-
6.	Food, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance etc.	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,42,100/-

¶208

Thus, in all, the claimant-Shridhar would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,42,100/- as against Rs.1,99,600/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶209

19. In MFA No.102109/2016 (MVC No.741/2014),

¶210

the claimant-Shrinivasalu was aged about 43 years at the time of the accident and was doing business, earning Rs.15,000/per month. As per Ex.P53-Wound Certificate, the claimant has

¶211

27 -

¶212

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶213

sustained fracture of tibia and fibula of left leg and fracture of radius of forearm. PW9-doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 38%, however, the Tribunal assessed whole body disability at 9% which is on the lesser side. 1/3^rd of 38% disability would be 13%, which could be considered as whole body disability of the injured. The Tribunal assessed monthly income of the injured at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. No cogent or acceptable document is placed on record to establish the avocation and income of the injured. In the absence of any documentary evidence to establish the avocation and income of the injured, this Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2014 would normally assess notional income at Rs.7,500/- per month, taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA based on various factors including the minimum wage fixed. Therefore, in the instant case also, in the absence of any corroborative document to establish the income of the injured, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate for us to determine notional income of the

¶214

28 -

¶215

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶216

injured at Rs.7,500/- p.m., taking note of the income chart prepared by KSLSA. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant at 43 years and applicable multiplier of 14. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,63,800/- (Rs.7,500 x 12 x 14 x 13%) towards loss of future income due to disability as against Rs.90,720/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶217

20. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, which in our view is just and proper and same is not disturbed. The claimant has sustained two fractures and he was an inpatient in the hospital for two months. Taking note of the same, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards food, diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges as against Rs.13,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities as against Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal and a sum of Rs.22,500/- towards loss of income during laid-up of three months period as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶218

29 -

¶219

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶220

Thus, the claimant would be entitled to modified compensation on the following heads:

¶221

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount
1.	Loss of earning capacity	Rs.1,63,800/-
2.	Loss of income during laid-up period for three months	Rs. 22,500/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 35,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities	Rs. 40,000/-
5.	Medical expenses	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Food, nourishment, attendant charges, conveyance etc.	Rs. 25,000/-
	Total	Rs.2,96,300/-

¶222

Thus, in all, the claimant-Shrinivasalu would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,96,300/- as against

¶223

Rs.1,61,720/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶224

21. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

¶225

ORDER

¶226

a) MFA Nos.101685/2016 to 101691/2016 filed by the insurance company are rejected .

¶227

b) MFA Nos.102103/2016 to 102109/2016 filed by the claimants-injured are partly allowed .

¶228

c) The impugned common judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified holding that the

¶229

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7913-DB

¶230

30 -

¶231

MFA No.101686/2016 C/W MFA No.101685/2016 MFA No.101687/2016, MFA No.101688/2016 MFA No.101689/2016, MFA No.101690/2016 MFA No.101691/2016, MFA No.102103/2016 MFA No.102104/2016, MFA No.102105/2016 MFA No.102106/2016, MFA No.102107/2016 MFA No.102108/2016, MFA No.102109/2016

¶232

claimants-injured would be entitled to modified compensation as under:

¶233

The claimant-injured in	Award of the Tribunal	Award of the High Court
MFA No.102103/2016	Rs.2,98,360/-	Rs.5,32,880/-
MFA No.102104/2016	Rs.1,76,720/-	Rs.3,01,300/-
MFA No.102105/2016	Rs.1,79,200/-	Rs.3,12,700/-
MFA No.102106/2016	Rs.1,87,800/-	Rs.3,12,300/-
MFA No.102107/2016	Rs.2,00,600/-	Rs.3,59,300/-
MFA No.102108/2016	Rs.1,99,600/-	Rs.3,42,100/-
MFA No.102109/2016	Rs.1,61,720/-	Rs.2,96,300/-

¶234

d) The claimants-injured in the aforesaid appeals shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petitions till realization.

¶235

e) The amount in deposit made by the appellantinsurance company in its appeals shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶236

f) Draw modified award accordingly.

¶237

Sd/JUDGE

¶238

Sd/JUDGE

¶239

JTR CT:VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

R Ishwaramma @ Eshwaramma W/O Nagabhushana v. B v Narahari S/O K Venkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Ishwaramma @ Eshwaramma W/O Nagabhushana v. B v Narahari S/O K Venkatappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Rama S/O Bomma Gowda , Occ. Ex M.R. Employee Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Gangaram Bheemappa Kalala

Dr S v Nachiket Vs the State of Karnataka

Sathishgouda S/O Eregouda Vs B v Narahari S/O K Venkatappa

Manjegouda S/O Thimmagouda Vs B v Narahari S/O K Venkatappa

Shridhar N S/O Nagabhushana Vs B v Narahari S/O K Venkatappa