Karnataka High Court
Shri Vishal Meelindra Kamble vs Kushappa S/O Sadashiv Kamble Since Died ... on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6000
MFA No. 103760 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103760 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. VISHAL MEELINDRA KAMBLE,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: DRIVING AND CLEANER,
(NOW NIL), R/AT: NAGARMUNOLI,
CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
NOW RESIDENT OF B. K. KANGRALI,
BELAGAVI-590010.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEEL P. PATEL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KUSHAPPA S/O. SADASHIV KAMBLE,
(SINCE DIED REP. BY HIS LR)
LAKSHMI W/O. KUSHAPPA KAMBLE,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. INDIARA NAGAR, CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591201.
2. THE MANAGER,
Digitally signed HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
by JAGADISH T
R OFFICE: 1ST FLOOR, VIRUPAKSHAKRUPA,
Location: HIGH OPPOSITE KIMS HOSPITAL, MAIN GATE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA P. B. ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580021.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT
DATED : 21/10/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE 8TH ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE AND IX ADDL. MACT, AT: BELAGAVI IN M.V.C
NO.513/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6000
MFA No. 103760 of 2023
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/injured
challenging the judgment and award dated 21.10.2022, passed in
MVC No.513 of 2021 by the VIII Additional District Judge and IX
Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short the Tribunal).
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
present appeal is filed only with regard to assessment of disability
by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same needs to be re-
assessed. He further submits that the Tribunal has assessed the
disability at 5%, which ought to have been 7%. Hence, he seeks
to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
3. Sri Nagaraj C Kolloori, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the
evidence available on record indicates that the appellant has
sustained nasal bone fracture, which is ornamental in nature and
the same cannot be treated as disability insofar as earning of the
appellant is concerned. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6000
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant and learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company and perused the material available on record.
5. The material available on record indicates that the
Tribunal has awarded compensation under the head of loss of
future prospects of the deceased. Generally, the injured would be
entitled to compensation under the head of loss of future
prospects unless the disability is of such a nature that he would
not be able to earn any income due to disability. In the instant
case, the disability assessed by the Tribunal is 5% and the
fracture is on the nasal bone. Hence, there is no error while
computing the disability by the Tribunal. Resultantly, I do not find
any error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB/Ct-an
