High Court Karnataka High Court

Arjun Sahu vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 28 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Arjun Sahu vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 28 January, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh


………._ -…vu-u vr nu-umrmnw-1 rmarv LUURI OF KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGR COUR’

IN THE !~EIG§~f want 0? MMAIAM, Bafid’:G.&.LGF:_E j%

mama TI-{IS “ms 28%’? am $F}ae1uai”{ zififfia M i ~

samag

‘me i-£Cl!§~J’Bi,.E am. sugrzcg E-f£JL;i;¥4’§.*’4I5t fiiA~fi§.tiQ+’?r§r~’&~;?’.’ £SCi~g:” :” .’._A °l.’

MA was 5m»5’é::z=L_2aov%5%*A%C[r~wj’% %%

uuuuu and

1 ARJUN $AH{5 «
Sm LATE 593.1351′-§i..§ %
AGEQ AwL.§?~2?~YE;§a$ – * ‘
her: 1ofi!A.-T’&i31i%;Tr:;za5a V , %
B?iARW£Nf€fi:.G~mfi,E’§’r£;j.–£:I%%i.£§§JF?.._
FLT. mxGAR;- 3 ~–

APPELLANT

(35; Sri : ir1sH%s:w;nr4§.9%f;§e.s% s:_ss.é?}rfma 3

unuwaiuuiatg

% Q1 T%?H§E::§1mTAL I§<I$L§RA£*£CE m rm

A3vjAz1f5rv:A:eAGEa, am 2:

X SAFtRf;§«M,A.r£t3ALfii; mama
A._BU{$i’)DI, mam: r-mm mam
.B<A94€3ALORE~30

3 .1 mean
men mama

R/O NE} 131, Gafisféfifi aAm::Y
aasaamez-samx

ass: 1:: same

aANm.Loa£~e5 Resmmsms

(53! Sri: RB. EMU, ADVGCATE }

<

wuvuw

""" "" '''*'''''''''''''''"''' ""*'*-V" '-'-"-"" Hf zxnmunu-m.M HNJE1 %.,uUKI Ur KA%(NA..!AKA NJQSH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAIAKA HIGH COUWET

TI-(IS MFA men 015 173(1) or: M! ACT Azasxnsr
me JUCIGMENT Am) AWARD unrrm snzios PA$.E _m4_:;i!§_l

we ncm77;e4 on me HLE or me JUDGE, :.~.'~'!'!14Ej'=f?}9_I_ _E:'R¢:"
MACT, mum or smu. muses, MsTnoPoLITANArcsA.? %*T
BANGALORE (seen-9:, xamnsr AU.QWIN€?'"T"r¥iEv» twp: "
PETITION FOR COMPENSATICQI … §NuilI_':$EEKI.1§G:;7

ENHANCEMENT o:= COMPENSATION. % % _
This Appoai coming on for'v1h*ax§':irgn t§iie court;
deiivored ths following: . '_ " ' "

Th': ééal-ring an banaament
of camptfinsasfidsi'.gs__e;Vgai2j§E.'Lfi1g aufivsrd passed by H13 Small

Cause Judwand :éifis4:a',.%ak§::%ga:o:u in we No.71?7[2004

on dgtjad os.12,:z¢cs.

‘ –.2§ at amund 3.30 a.m.. when the

cI aixf:aVntV.vWi$-;_ ififiaiiing as a piiiion ridnr in moaaorcycle

No.AXQ-1806» near Kathriauppu Main
= “‘..jR.’«oA’§sd;4..¢§ztvVV’I’:l1at time, a Toyota Qua.-dis hearing No.KA-05–C-
V in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
“”:.uj”g$§ITIinst the motor cycle, due Ira which, the claimant fall

down and sustained injurits.

3
i
E
5

CUURT WE” KA§{Ni1″%’&?€.A flifirfl €.’UUKfA KAKNRIAKA Hibfl huulil vr lxnmwnwmu nlurl uwuiu ur nnnlvmannm ruswn Muuau ur nmnmmmnuun In\mi’l wvunl

5

3. The claimant filed a claim petition seeking

compensation of R.s.10,D0,00£3/-.

4. The matter was cunuustvad by

Campanv since an owner of “‘ufi§1ndis’I9R_.’

remained ex parte before the Trihunéii…

5. Basic! on . A Tr!”b£i’nq;i~’ ‘gnawing
raieod as many as three that the
accidmt was driving of
T ovum Quart? held, the Tribunal
awa rdegk” ‘gIab§%i%%%L¢5%sapah¢§tsa}; “$Is.2s,eoe,t- with 5%
interest tilt «deposit. Being not
sa1:iefi§_d_ ui&a%+3yak%gaa%%;w.é:u, me claimant is berm this

” «auurfixa #993-RI. ~~~~~ ~ «

tha warned eounse! tor the respactive

. As per the rmditai evidence, the claimant has
VT sufitniruad mncussive head injury right taempom parietal

” ‘ regiaon, swvamng in the right eya, abrasian aver right

articulataor regian, abrasian ever the right knee and the left