§N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOi{i§;'» T.
Dated: This the 1731 day of Februaxy A'
BEFORE
THE E-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE _:J;.3AQA:§i§Afi*E§}g:~i""
BETWEEN :
M SRINIVASA S/0 MUNI_3ACIaA.i?PA ' ~
AGED ABOUT SQYEARSV " :4 ?
WAT No.50, III WEAIN R0559; V
HEBBAL GATE
BANGALORE 24 . '
_ § . _ XLAPPELLANT
(By sjxvfiav 4Af:L.I§¢Ara:A¢_H_EG:3Ei.'aa .
SR1N!ANgjt1NA'FH,4_AI)VS;}..-- *
1. T'HE'MANAG§'NG T'm:Rgt;T0R,
t<:sRTC-DEPo'r, . V *
_I_{.H.R'C3A1"),. EANGALORE
* _ 2. N $AYANA1é ':'ANA
S/Q NARAYANAPPA
' TANARASAPURA
.KQ'LARM--LuK
§{0LA}? EJISTRICF
...RssPoNDENTs
[By S.1'i.---N K RAMESH, ADV. FOR R1)
MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
QJUDGMENT AND AWARD mrrgnzzv/0912005 PASSED
" "IN Mvc: NQ3144/199'? ON 'rug FILE 09* VI AITIIBL. SCJ Ga
MEMBER MACT, BANGALORE (SCCHQ), PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSAWON
& SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF' COMPENSATIGN.
M.F.A.No.'120m18[2605,E£'@ I -. «. " A T
THIS APPEAL comma ON FOR HEARING THIS
BAY, THE comm' DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING ; ~j 'f
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel;
none appears for the respondents; — ‘ V.
2. The appellant. is of
compensation awarded in as much as
the tribunal . ‘coei”peI1satio11 of
Rs.-4,000 ” and therefore he is
before ‘this fl; = ‘ A’
3; for the appellant
sulégfiriitted cioctor has been examined as PW–
2 the doctor’s evidence, the c}ai:mant
of his right hand mcause of the
to the upper limb and the doctor
H K that 80% disability is caused to the upper
and as such, tak3n’ g note of the medical
evidence, the tribunal could have awarded higher’
compensation.
,3′?
V I
3
4. It is further submitted that the claimant is
having lands and he is not in a position to do the
work in the iand as he was doing earlier.
5. Under the head of pain and ”
compensation is sought by the .. V .
6. Having heard the ‘mailoei w
and after going through the.__mee’ie_e1 %
doctor examined as PW«–2 2 the
effect that the of his right
hand;_ up he cannot perform any
functio-An person can perform and
fequizree ‘e_.et1ye’iotk1erapy because of the damage
upper 1311113, I am of the View that the
‘to be awarded compensation under the
and sufiering and as Well as under the
V. of loss of amenities of life though so far as the
“occupation is concerned, there is no likelihood of any
2 wfail in the inoome from the lands because for
supervising nature of work, the disability may not
come in the way.
L’;
‘I
7. Therefore, towards pain and sufiering, a
sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded and towards 1os:~:.__Vof
amenities of life and the difficulty with » u
appellant has to carry on his work
dimbility to the right hand, uncieii eras 11¢a:1;g ?g;;%%
Rs.50,000/– is awarded._
physiotherapy treatment the
said expenses a sum
of Rs.30,0OO/-V is gets
exmanced K 1e,_ee,.ea0/- and out of this,
Rs.30,l’C’)D{:):/e– treatment shall not carry
ixxterestl -A as the rest of the amount is
interest is awarded from the date of
‘ ‘of compensation.
” of the tribunal is modified accordingly by
-,, ai1e¥Wimg the appeal in part.
Qvr: