IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREST
Dated: This the 20TH day of October ~
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICEm_IAGA1\iNA9;5I;Lé;:~J
M.F.A.No.12526/13QO6..f}YQflS, " T
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. L'I"£>,_," ' '
REGINAL OFFICE NO A~E-}24§8.. "_ '
SHIVAJINAGAR, ._P'UNE.¥41:.1404;.~._
STATE OF ' A
THROUGH ITS
EANGALQRE RI-f.GIONAL_ OFFICE,
NO 144', SEJBHARAM 'COMPLEX,.._...«
BAi'~J.G.ALORE--560001 .
REP' '_BY.;I':'_S AI3M1NI:STRA:r1V<E"0FF1c ER.
" .. ' " ...APPELLANT
{By Sri S V HEGEE n¢uL2, RAIPUR.
" " MADYAPRADESH.
... RESPONDENTS
3
occupation of his business. Secondly, the tribunal
has taken 20% disability for the whole body for which
there is no medical evidence. Therefore, aniouht
requires to be reduced under the said
support of the above submissyion, lea’r’ned:’_’vco’un’s_ei.u, ”
placed reliance on the Divisionr,Be’nech o’fVfthis?1,e_:
court reported in {LR _V
submitted that towards Liduring
treatment period, the” the same
for one full reveals that
the as an in patient only for
22 days’;’*f_1A’hn;sl,” eornpensation awarded is on the
higherside. 2 ”
” respondent Claimant though served,
reInai*ned absent. Notice to R2 has been
ypdispensed.
4. Having regard to the above submission
‘V V.–tnade by the appeIlant’s counsel and taking note of
the evidence on record, I find some substance in the
submission made because though the claimant has
i’:
2?”
stated before the tribunal that he was doing garment
business and occasionally was also doing-,VVfi’1;t’it”‘-«
business, no material is placed in proof of jgibvotfei’
business carried on by the a§:5pAeIlant.’*«._
sustained in the accident _was ftacture of it
with fracture of shaft left
of income in the business theifafiforesaid
injuries and the claimant,
nothing the producing the
documents. from the business.
UndeijtheseVteiimgigistatiees, the only course left is to
take /– per month as in the
ofa coo1i’e–.. _
far as disability is concerned, the
doctor is to the effect that the
“suffered 20% whole body disability in View
fbgjghevtttfracture sustained by him. Taking the said
“percentage for the whole body and income at
it WRs.3,0O0/~» per month, under the head of permanent
disability, the amount will Work out to Rs. i,08,000/w
it
instead of the amount given by the tribunal. Towards
loss of income during treatment period is concerned,
the tribunal has awarded the same for one 3
whereas the claimant was in hospital
as an inpatient and therefore the p_er1.ijo-cl:
restricted to three months; _Conseqt1–ent1yliinlder V
head of loss of income treatrnelnttllkpelriod,
claimant will be enritied place of
Rs.48,000/–. Thus,v’t.he_ the whole
gets
To thepabove: appeal is allowed in
modification of rthc…’-afiiardlll of the tribunal. The
anaoulritiiri-.”dreposit beltransferred to the MACE’.
sal-
JUDGE