<p>While not agreeing with the ruling of Karnataka High Court, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly said, “On a reading of the high court order, it is clear that the High Court did not consider the appellant’s case properly.’’<br /><br />Referring the case of B T Krishnappa back, the bench said, “The High Court is requested to deal with the matter with utmost expedition since it concerns compensating an injured workman.’’<br /><br />The Apex Court pulled up the high court by saying that it awarded an additional compensation only for future medical expenditures and did not deal with the aspect of future loss of earnings at all, which it felt was not a correct approach.<br /><br />“It accepted the tribunal’s assessment of the body disability at 20 per cent and observed that the tribunal has paid compensation under the heads ‘loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of earnings during laid up period on the lower side,’’ observed the bench while directing the high court to consider the case for more compensation. "However, it awarded an additional compensation only for future medical expenditure and did not deal with the aspect of future loss of earnings at all, which we feel was not a correct approach," the apex court said in a judgement which was released here on Tuesday.<br /><br />Krishnappa had suffered serious injuries in a road accident on January 1, 2006, resulting in permanent disability of the right leg.<br /><br />The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,55,000 with 7.5 per cent interest and on an appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation by only Rs 34,000 for meeting future medical expenses, but did not consider compensation the loss of ability to work. Krishnappa had challenged the order of the High Court.</p>
<p>While not agreeing with the ruling of Karnataka High Court, a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly said, “On a reading of the high court order, it is clear that the High Court did not consider the appellant’s case properly.’’<br /><br />Referring the case of B T Krishnappa back, the bench said, “The High Court is requested to deal with the matter with utmost expedition since it concerns compensating an injured workman.’’<br /><br />The Apex Court pulled up the high court by saying that it awarded an additional compensation only for future medical expenditures and did not deal with the aspect of future loss of earnings at all, which it felt was not a correct approach.<br /><br />“It accepted the tribunal’s assessment of the body disability at 20 per cent and observed that the tribunal has paid compensation under the heads ‘loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and loss of earnings during laid up period on the lower side,’’ observed the bench while directing the high court to consider the case for more compensation. "However, it awarded an additional compensation only for future medical expenditure and did not deal with the aspect of future loss of earnings at all, which we feel was not a correct approach," the apex court said in a judgement which was released here on Tuesday.<br /><br />Krishnappa had suffered serious injuries in a road accident on January 1, 2006, resulting in permanent disability of the right leg.<br /><br />The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,55,000 with 7.5 per cent interest and on an appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation by only Rs 34,000 for meeting future medical expenses, but did not consider compensation the loss of ability to work. Krishnappa had challenged the order of the High Court.</p>
