IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14"' DAY OF AUGUsi1*;'::)g33§ L % h THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE;
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A,;’PEAL_;$¢ §; 117959? A(%
BETWEEN:
Wnsim Wasim Akram.._ i _ __
18 years, S/0 Haseen Pasha A
No. 47, 3*” Main,-P’ Cross
Kudadanxush, S}im,1i_§a3n:&_
Garden, Mysoi*s”1?;§§:j ~ : 3
Baagalore 3′
(By shn. 9.3, k%s:a:11;a;,%,é;;:%»;¢cae)
%1k;%.%T1:é;m’aa¢r b5jm%%
3 Major, S3}; Iaidev
N0. 734, 5″” Main
Vi jay:i.?1agar
; Bangalore
1 »M:’s. Nations} Insurance
Company Limited
Ifireet Agent Branch
No. 9, Lingaraju Compitsx
Gandhi Bazaar
Bangalow–56O M4
Z»
APPELLANT
3
brevity) seeking compensation. The Tribunal having awarded a
total sum of Rs.36,000/- under certain heads the
appellant is before this Court, seeking of
compensation.
3. The Couneel for the nreiild’i.l$n!§ini.t,,, in in
accident and the injuries are,..not-_ii?–.__dis}iiite-_ medical
practitioner having disability is also not
in SfllltilttiiitlifigilitltfliiiiiiT!fil3l1!’lE!il_iil’lti\«tii!’lg granted only Rs.20,000r’-
towardii’-pain land: therefore on the lower side and
would require eiiliasrieenienit by conventional standards.
* t VT!1e iiiieotirseol’ theiiiijfipellant was also not in serious dispute. He
Rs.3000f- per month. The Tribunal has granted
losfiwof for a period of one month. It may be piesumed
H iiswing feigard to the nature of injuries even if the appellant has
any material to establish his claim that he was laid
V Eur several months, he was laid up for atleast three months.
3
Inseihr as the disability is eoncemed, the appefizinty being
employed as a eootie, the large extent of
atfects not only his avoeation but in all fn3niiiit;s5_A
of amenities. Hence the head of ciaéim to
have been granted independently. tiiasi
considered the same. eiititled to an
enhancement.
4. fine >tF’;ei’re__sp¢nradent on the other hand, would
oppose isubmit that in the absence of any
mateifieii appellant, the Tribunal} was not obliged
2i§;y’.4iiia’aouut under the conventionai heads of claim. The
vaiious iaiijoeritsi granted are substantial and there is no warrant
Q for eiatiaiiacetnent.
“Given the theta and circumstances, the Tribunal was not
it ‘*jiistified in restricting the award towards pain and suffering to
%
Rs.20,0G0f–. The same requires it} be enhanced by anoihtgr sum of
Rs. 10,000./-.
Similarly, loss 91′ income for alleasl ihruc
presumed and accordingly, the ;:;ppei’}«:::;t7u’ gshiiégvl-!iI.i§i’3g.%(}–.iI1oiiRani 1′.
addilionai sum ofRs.6000/–.
Insefiar as the miscellaneous Gxptiftiéiiiiiffi is cungerriexl, even in
the absence uf material is entitled to an
additiu¥sai”i’:;iiift;.oI; liiW&i'”di*i miwcilanuous expenditure
apart fiiam
‘mad 6i” V.;§:I§§jxn’:1uwards disability ought 19 have bean
‘4iI’i:.c:_’disabilily in the absence of any specific rwsmns
established from ought to be taken at 8% to the
whoia. If this is applied on a muiliplicr method, the
vi is entitled to an additional sum 01′ Rs.5},840i’-(Rs.3000
” 3% X 12 X 13).
Z”
The appellant is thus entitled to an addiii¢:na!.–§:&1tI;§§§iii.$§a£i;ii: ‘<f»~E°4
Rs.70,840/~ with interest thereon a{ 6%~pcr j
we award. The aPPcal is allfiwed % % A
hdge
SR