High Court Karnataka High Court

Shivayogappa S/O Siddappa … vs The Divisional Controller on 30 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shivayogappa S/O Siddappa … vs The Divisional Controller on 30 July, 2009
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das


IN THE HIGH COURT or .

cmcurr 321303311′ 4- _

DATE!) Tms THE 30%? <5r§§f:IL$:','
nuEF6R#__ A 3 V~ . .. –

“mm Hownm MR. Jfifiifjcpv H..ia.- mas

BETWEEN:

S§-iEVAYO£}AR?R._VSj.O« SIQDAPPA CHENNEGAVI
AGE?) gA’Bo_L:T’»:;3.._vEARs ” ,

0:119 sA.{,ES.1~4jAN {N TATA TEA cc;
R;.c>MBAGALK{::r§ –

.. APPELLANT

{BY ms N5 sE’:Ai¢:§A;z2f:§e.A’NGARE31 85 ASSTS., ADVSJ

–‘–wuwuwn:n_he

” “*z*H§:».:)1*éis:©;NAL CONTROLLER
. ‘–..Vi?€WI{R3′;’–€3”;[‘
* §3AC}ALE{1f:«’E’ DIVISION
“–B£a£3AL£~{“G’i{‘
. ‘ ., RESPQNDEN?

= gay SEE sysn R H, ADV, 3

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 1273(1) OF MV ACT AGAENST
THE JUDGMENT AND §;WAf€D DATED:14/ES/2098 PASSED IN

Mvc No.555/2006, ON THE FILE 0? I«1E;’aCT’.}f*~IO.:f:f,’.v@§AC§F.£KOT,

PARTLY ALLQWING THE CLAIM PETITION pfgg-,r;o:q1PE:msAT1oé:;.. _

THIS APPEAL COMING oh”FOR’im”M1SS;ié,;v ‘TH:s.

DAY, THE COURT DELIVEREATf:I’_E*~FOLL()1V1N§i}»: .
JUfiaMENr>3

This is a :bcing aggrieved by the
inadequacy of c>omp€:1:;s§s1ti(>n’ tbs Tribunal in its
award da1i¢d}:;4_, 1§L’2g§§ in M556/2095.

” of accident, {he claimant was aged

abéutf “%:1:ié:«j$1t>per multiplier is 15. Fuziizhcr, it

js:.vsecx1″” £’€(‘,’;?.!Ifi that on the data of accident, the

Wafi. « xi¢bfki11g as a Saies Representative and his

V V is to be taken at R’s,3,G0{)/ «~ per month. In

;3(:£j»i§§_c1:;t, the aypeflant sustaineéd a laccrated wound on

isidfi 01° fact: and fiacmm in right clavicle rcgtien. The

” I Easter éaposcé bcfgm tha Sour: stating that there is 25°/E;

disabfiity to the grievous injuzy party and 18%: to the What

body. Having mgaréi to the age, nature of jab and the

a%j”?<»"~/x

in_;'un'es sustained, the Tmbunal had xu 1:b.§

functional disability at 6%,

3. In the chcuinsiéinccs, “figs. for
compensation undszf the “Kass of capacity on

account of disabiiitgf 3;” ”

“‘R,§.3oé~o x”:S :£§»=?Rs.32,4o0/~
” ~ _;zQ’0.._ .

“hea£iing loss of amenities in life, the

‘I’z*i¥3i1;1:*§.1*haS”:;6t gr$§1tc£i any compensafion and i 3111 cf the

Vésjjpiuicn t1ia£_V C1é1im§&n{ is entitled for Rs.;”:”>,OO0/ ~ ands: this

Again. the Tribunal has no’: gant/mil any

n towazds nourishment, feed, tmnspeltation

Aéf izlcomc during iaid up period. i am of the

0;:§iz3.i{‘):1 that the ciaimarrzt is emitlecl for campensation of

” ‘ ‘Rf1–;;,5,ooo/» under this head.

5. In view (if the Law declared by the Supreme
Court in the case 0f SUPE DE} (SMTJ AND QTBERS –

1%; xxx,

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY L1MIT§:«§§..Ax’§;ArécrffI5ER

reported in (2009) 4 SCC 513,A»Vthe ¢’;1tii:],%:€1″f’§i’A.?.

interest at 9%» pa. in place of ;p..:»1j3 ‘

6. For the masoné ai5r;;**=-.’gV*,:_,T {be following:

i)
}::x»§;§;~d”£1ated 14.10.2003 in MVC
Bagalkot, is
modgiisci compensatti-an to
Rs:.5_4,o$C”*~V_” in “n’o1′ Rs.:34,820/~ with
25.1: f’:?°fc>a fig’; **** ” ‘V
other aspects, impugxed
. .’ intact ané unéisturbeci.

iv} accordingly.

Sd/6′
JUDGE