-1- IN THE HIGH COURT 0F KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13"" DAY or DECEMBER 2003 P j I BEFORE THE HUMBLE MR. JUSTICE su3P1sxsP:-~2Ps. 57%; MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.SSi§72::'(_)F": 2(m8P BETW EN: NAGARAJU E 5/0 ERANNA AGE 34 YEARS C/O BASAVANNA BASAVAKRUPA NILAYA 3RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA '- _ f 1 J TUMKUR V -- * .'é"»P,,..APPEj.:mNTP (BY SR1: PATEL' " ANQ: 2' " t' ' " 1 3AvAPRA:KAsH'c..§-:. 2 AGE 69':"-.EAR_E3-- HAL PGLICE QuARTe+<s" MARATHAHALLE _ - BANGALORE 44.37 _ 2 BAJA}. _:A1,LmNZ GENERAL ~.,;;~:su_s_2i~.r«:<f_:E Cf) LTD ..... c; P PmzA5q=~..1aP«PoRT ROAD YAR!'«WAD.A'a .. ~PUN_E --v41':.._ofi5 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY séx: D. xiiimi KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONSENT No.2,
Nance T*:}’RESPONDENT No.1 IS mspawseo wm-4)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL is FILED UNDER SECTION
2 *1.73(1j3.. OPP’-W ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
‘~«x3;~2.2n;r3_»PA3sE£> 1:» we Nc>.352/2003 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING
‘».’*v._oPFr;:5R;. ‘PAST TRACK-IV AND AGDL. HACIT, muxua, PARTLY
‘RLLCWINE THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATIGN AND SEEKING
= . V EPa.HA:¢cEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
..2_
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING on FOR 1::itaE’ig:_S__f
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
As the iiability is admitted bf,traeisilinsutterfi
respondent no.1 being the owner”of”‘~t.he v”eh:i_cie,V
resoondent no.1 is disoensed with.
2. This is claimant’s of
compensation in ‘jud§;rnent’l”*:.’ein.d..Tieward dated
18.2.2008 in the file of the MACT,
Tumkur. injuries in a road
accident. The’ATribuna’i accident and the liability
of the insurer is pr’o’tIed’.i.
reoard”‘~–to the quantum of compensation, the
‘xv._claime’itt:”eil’e§’ed”_g:thet’the has suffered 3 grievous injuries,
Vrlitormely, left tibia and two other injuries. Doctor
‘ «e.xuarn’ined the claimant has assessed the disabliity at
ti-s–;é’o°;’/9 to the left lower mo and 25% to 30% to the
‘»v._VAyvii–oVleV’body. However, Sector has not given the basis of the
..”u.k’essessment of disability. The Tribunal, considering the
-3-
nature of injuries and the period for which the cieimant.veiae_:’_*-..vv
under treatment. urantw compensation of Rs.95.00Q;’$Vi”‘i’n’
4. Learned counsei for the appel_lant__sub_i3iittedj;that; it
though the Doctor has stated that the cieirrgant; hes’
25% to 30% disability te the whtil_e4-pedy;-..theV in
utter disregard to the evidence of the-..Do.ctor,.”i:–ae’_’gra?nted
giobal compensation«’:..of. ‘disability’
without assessing’ th’ej’–«aictti’al.:’fut.uAre.__lti_s§{ef.–income’. He also
submitted thei:”the;”;orri§:;enseti’on lewarrded is on the iower
side and requires en’heno’ernent’;t*–.
5. S4r;i;E)._\/ijalya-iauezer,learned counsel appearing for
– Et€orri:pe.ny stilhniitted that though the Doctor has
stated» iznellVytiieartiilityfFhewever, has not given the ciinicai
1’v.v.:’a’e’sessmei*i.t net” disability stated by the Doctor is
“”‘a.E:t;etitei)iVe’. it further submitted that the Tribunai has
V –.n}::«t accepted the evidence of the Doctor.
‘ ‘ _ It is not in dispute that the claimant was treated as
in-patient frem 5.5.2003 to 9.5.2003 and he underwent
..5_
Tibia may not come in the way of doing the
However, towards ‘discomfort’ , the ciaiirnant is it it
Rs.30,G€i0/-.
In ail, the ciaimant is entitiedkor Rt.1«,3_0;.0Ci0}’%v;:’vi&¥ith
5% interest per annum.
Accordingly, Apifieéak is ”
Sd/-3
Iudgé