-1-
IR THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAIIGALORE
BETWEEN;
1
DATED THIS THE 193' DAY OF' {DECEMBER £8
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH ELADI
M.F.A.NO.9366[ QQOS IMVCI
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE ct:-,. L'm,; * _ A.
CBO--7, PEENYA BRANCH OFFICE, no 2e, =
FT. ROAD, JALAHALLI cRoas,cH0.xKAsAN1}.RA, I
BANGALORE»-57, REPRESERTED BY ITS'
ASST MANAGER, THE C}RiEN'i'AL--INSI_I'I%TNAC1E 3
co L'I'D., REGIQNAL.999163,-LEO"'s1Ȥ0PPI:siG~'
COMPLEX, NO 44/45_, "RE3Il3E.NCY' ..R0_A1:>,
BANGALORE-560 025. v
;_.~.7'APPELLAN'r
{By 3;; ; M U" air, Iii2Agr3.£';EP' mmarz. ADVS.)
SR1 C"i?._C'-HAZQ DRASHI?j;KAR
510 R RAMAMRm'*HY'
AGEE) ABOUT 23 YEARS
-12'; AT. NQ 2179;'sHwANANnANAGAR-
A w ., sm CROSS, MODALAPALYA
' SR: 3 re; CHANDRASHEKAR
Of NARASIMHA GGWDA
rm'-5402
AX ,_R/AT N0.D.1/83, zrm CROSS
'LAKSHMINARASIMHA NILAYA
V' LEELAVATHI EXTENSION
MADDUR TOWN MANDYA.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri : B RAJENDRA PRASAD, ADV. FOR C/R1)
ifihlciih
-2-
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF Mv ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 26.5.2008 PASSED IN
MVC N0.5890l2006 ON THE FiLE OF THE JUDGE,
Comm’ OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, mew,
METROPOLITIAN AREA, BANGALORE,
(:”::¢:x:*,I~£,I_~E.f;”};~;2},[~~V.
AWARMNG A COMPENSATION or Rs. 4,14,s76[:.__wrm. 3
INTEREST @ 6% RA excmvr rm t?U’I’IfRF} M_EnreA.;,’
EXPENSES FROM THE DATE 01? PETITION TILL i’.)’if}Pv:}SIT. ‘
THIS APPEAL COMING on F03?’ ‘AQM’iSSI«§fi’
BAY, THE comm’ DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING’: ~ 7
This appeal is by the the
quantum of N’o.AA5$§90/O6
dated 26.5.2008 01;’ the
2. in an accident
that took eeg9.i1%, waged that, c1a11na’ nt
was moving in a *rA=1fAif%S:;Vi:oi:%§ehi¢1c belonging to his friend.
When they vimee Kanyazmman’ to Madhurai via
Thirunyéeleefi neaf the TATA Sumo vehicle
side of the mad due to the rash and
the driver of the said TATA Sumo.
_C]aini*aut head injury and was taken to the
” 4.4″~–§l l?%AHAN.SV–‘I;Iospita1 and thereafter he was shifted to mas
Bangalore. In this regard, he has produced wound
discharge summary, discharge report and has
” ” examined PW3 the doctor. As per Ex.P5- discharge
summary it shows that, he was inpatient from 30.11.2005
to 53.12.2005 in Shaxavathi Hosnitai and Ex.P6- the
N,
‘K «n
discharge summazy of KIMS Hospital shows that he was
inpatient fmm 15.12.2005 to 26.12.2005. Simiiarly Exsf?
and P8 reveals that, he was inpatient fmm 24.11.20-osi’ja§”e..%
29.11.2005. Ex.P16 is the discharge certificate ~
Nemopsychologist. PW3 is the doc;tQr»_.whe’ ‘1
c!a3m’ ant. It has come in the evidence’-,tha_t”thie fleas 1;’
doing Typing work. Iioctor 15 V1
physically and mentally unfit to job.” Eesxeept fyping
he does not knew any wofl-#1:} ‘
3. Consi£1e:i§3g_ ‘_:.p§t; V’ 1′ doctor and
consiziefing _ issued by
Neuwpsycholegiei the disability at 25%
which Coxmeidering that the claimant
was Typist. at Rs.4.000]~ by applying
muxtspigget em’ ‘:3’ ~ 25% disability. the Tribunal has
of future earnings at Rs.2,15,000/~. On.
has granted compensation based
1 rm tiie expenditum and incidental cost. In my
” 4.11″.-éjaizgjgn. though Sri Pradeep. learned counsel for the
A contents that the compensafion awarded by the
is on the higher side and there is no proof of
‘éncazrae and disabiiity cannot be 25%», but the evidence
clearly indicates the natme of disability and also the job the
claimant was doing. Having xeaanzl to the evidence on
1-9
9 .
?~ /-»~
‘t I’
rcooxtl, I find no reason to interfere with the judgment and
award of the Trihunai.
Accordingly, appeal fails and same is dismissed.
Amount in dcpmsit be hansfcxmd to the Tzibunalg’ ff’ ”
% *