National Insurance Co Ltd vs P Anandarama Mayya on 17 July, 2008

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KAR&ATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS wag 17" gay OF JULY 20Q8:'_
PRESENT V.'
THE RON'BLE MR.JusTICE K L M£mfi§g§fi$ A';"
AND i .. . M . ,,
THE HON'BLE MRs.J§s$;cE'B v gAsfig§i§N#."
MFA No.58fi%fé002(fiV}: E  
BE?WEEN i. ii X '  

NATIONAL INSURANCE Sci LTD.,
SALIM 3HavANI.MAjN ROAD
opy; Bus STAND, SANKARI~637 30:
BE $T$ MANAGER _____ _V

'~ #= En ... APPELLANT

'» ;gt'$R:"éfMAHEsH, Anv.,)

ANfizt

'».i' 9 ANANDARAMA MAEYA, MAJGR

8/O SHESHA MAYYA P

R/O NO.2l6/ZR, BRLAJI ROAS
II BLOCK, T R NAGAR
B%NGALORE~2€



_ 2 _

23 R SENGOTTU VELU, MAJOR
s/0 RAJATGQUNBER _-mM
13,A PALANI 1 W 2
M MANJAKKALAPATHY F 0, LT"
SANKARI TRLUK __ =
SALEM DISTRICT (@,m;V V .1.,';"~w~ -

* " ';,1-RESEONDENTS

{BY SR1 K V NARA§IMHA§}_é@§;;=E0R R41}
R~2 SERVED) '~ -' *a; *Ju'»

THIS HER 1s"§1iEQVg;g 1?§{l) OF M;V.ACT
AGAINST was JUDGMENT AND AwA§9 DATED 4.6.2092
PASSED §N"MVCgNO-§;5£9§'Qfi THE FELE 05 THE XVI

A9DETI€Né:5 "§uDG$;f MAST; BANGALORE CITY,
PAR$LY__ ALL w:NG,f1

3. The.» tribunal; t_'¢¢¢s:dér:ng the

eviden¢é=:§: ig by the fiarties, held that the
c1aim§nt:,V h$é7a Téfiff¢red 309% permanent

difiability "and Vcdfisidering his income as

"t~_Rs{é?QQ©£r §ér~ month, has awarded. a sun: of

v9 Ré$l2;§B}G§Q{- under the head loss of future

éatfiing.téa§acity; Int all, the tribunal has

t,awarda@:a total compensation of Rs.l5,Gl,459Xv

'twit&;interest.

fiv'



-5-

4. The appellant --ineurance compafiflis

challenging oniy the iinding ef the;xr;euge;.

awarding Re.l2,48,GO0/~ under the_heed less 5f.t*

future earning eepacityyi, Ziej e;ée~.¢:a%thef

limited question raised by age apperiefitg eetfi

are not required te coneifier tee eohpeesation
awarded by the trflbfina: en ether heads.

eeuneel for the apgeilaet. According to him,
the tribunal has edmmitted a serious error in

awgeding Rs;12;48;00e/~ under the head ices ef

rfiaturetineeme considering that respondent No.1

'nae reefieied' 190% permanent disability. He

eufimite that even if the aforesaid amount of

""ares,12;4S,oo0/-- is inveeted in fixed deposit,

"it would earn intereet more than the income

tV""elaimed by reepondent No.1 and therefore,

«EL



...5...

requests the Court to all9w' the "éfipéal  a@fi"

reduce the quantum of compensatidn awardéd by

the tribunal under the atoretaid heéfig»_V }

6. Having hefirdtthgileatfied caunsel for
the appellant, we de hat sgé afifi merit in this

appeal fog thé imllddlng reéfidfis:

:fidmitt¢dly}t"t@spcndent No.1 has proved

his disability 3: 166% and the tribunal has

rigfitly Come_tC the ccnclusion that on account

vlcflafififitttlon of right lower limb and right

"§p§et"Tlin$;" respcndemt No.1 has become a

disabzéd person and his earning capacity has

'_'b@QoH@" ZGKO. The claimant wrespomdent NQ.l

'$33 also proved his income by examining P.W.2

'l""¥S:ikanth, Manager of the Bank. He has also

produced Ex.?.ll and P.l2 --colle¢tiofi booka,

(Q/



-7...

Ex.§.13 ~--commission paid to him 

and E:>t.. i1i17_a %{;_0oé'i 1}:~.'1:<'j~r; ta interfere:

with the fir'1d--i;'1g .;'Af*--vtz}g;§'-t_:»i1§ij:;§iL;"

721.   _afif§éa} is dismissed.
   %    sal-
 .....  

Sd/-3
‘Judge

‘ bkv