High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Praveen Kumar vs Sri G M Lingaraj on 30 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Praveen Kumar vs Sri G M Lingaraj on 30 January, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
I

{N THE HIGH CO1} RT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 30*" DAY OF JANUARY 2009

BEFORE 'V % Q
1 THE HON'BLF2 MR. JI I_{-:¥'!'..IV~".'.f*'."Av~£;}€_F£()§3i§§§Cf~§fi«~v--.. 
MIS(':F:LLANFIOUS HRS? API§%:%:"5:;.__r»:V(;.  (MV)
BETWEEN;    'V  

SR1 PRAVEEN KUMAR   _  '

AGED ABOUT 2;': Y'$ARS    "   
AUTORICKSHAW..D3?_NER _;  "    V .

R 1' O MACHE"NAH'AL»LI, 

CHICKMAQAEUR"D§SfFRi.Qf'l' _ * "  3  APPELLANT

(By sfiqr N Vi$ié*;¢b:§;'rHA,%Vgé;av.; i

AND :

1 V,  SRIG M LHQGARAJ

 °~s; SR1 MUflI'f&'-XNGAPPA
~ ,_ DRIVERQF GOODS VEHICLE

'  _B'EA'RI H.G 'N0 KA~18~9556

 }{,4.Q'-AKRISH-BIAPURA, DI. NO 92iL50/P72;'01«O2

4  TARiKE'>R"E'. TALUK

 CHiCI_§3§iAGALUR DISTRICT

 2 SRI 3G M KRISHNA MURTHY

;  SIG SR1 MARIYEKPPA
.V AGED ABGUT 30 YEARS

' OWNER OF GOODS VEHICLE
BEARIRG NO KA--18~9556
RI 0 KRISHNAPURA, TfiRiKERE TALUK
CHIKAMAGALUR DI§I'R1C'I'

J.



-'3 M/S UNITED iND¥A INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
RB NO. i 14 CRESERT COURT

K,M.ROAD __
CHICKMAGALUR  RESPONDEIWS

(By Sri: PRABHAKAR L SHETTY. Am'. FOR R1-2
Sri: P B RAJU, ADV. FOR R3)

THIS APPEAL IS FILE9 U/_S_ 1-?.3(1;_ OF  Ac'1'fA<3AINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD .i.)A'i"ED: 2111,2007' msssn IN
MVC NO. 5953200? ON '1'HEjI~'¥_Li3_ O56' fri-:§:'v.P£'<re:si:)1zwENS£<:rIQr4..vL'--.V_ - ~ '

This A-pg-_=,a'i'iT:.§a:m'agg% an fm¥i.gd;;zissam, this day, the
Court made:the;:__fcg11ovéi_r;g  ' ' " '

The }&la¥n':afit,{ajngieE1%§nt is heforre this Ca-uriz seeking

 '_ en?3a"i<!<:t;1__fic:}t of""th_t:...»ex1mpensafion as against the sum

  V'  Accident. Claitnsa 'I'fihIma1, Tarikere

 sho§%.'{:5_:¢:  in we M50] 2007.

"  Heard the learned miznscl for the pfltfiflfi rind

--   the appeal 

L



3. in Irrspmt of the injnritts suffemd by the claimant

in the accident which ocvurmd rm 11.2.2007, the 

has awarded the total campcnsatinn of Rs.88,88:i/a..«T: 

ewsttking enhancement of coinpensatrlaitryit is cxm'f'£i'j§%efi V that

the 'I'rihun.'--al was not only not   

sum towmfls I033 of fixtum eammgs, but the firjxfzfsengfifion " V

award:-':6 tinder the heads  'm_;fi"er.iiig«.:§nd §mrxii(',a!

expenses 3150 is on the 1€1'wér.$'érie:  :F1ii*tfie1:fAno onmpensatinn

4.  "afhe respondent hrrwever naught

to jtnatify théé by the Tribtmal ocmttmding that

. V. ~theV”¥’r{iI1:ihai* afifir the on T’E-{‘?~€)1″d has: come

.15 the same does not call fiar intcrfemnrxe.

Eight sf what has been contended, the first

‘.V.aspr.-Q… noti-r:cd is with lncgard to the ammnnt awmtied

V’ ‘V. ‘frAiyvé:=§:xf1s R333 of fimlm eamings. Insofar as the Trihunai

‘ mxssesaing the disahifity of 57%, I do not see any ermz” since:

1:

awanied under the said head. Tmmards pain

the amount awarded is on the knV¢r~5v3(ic and a si’*==i,:<%li 3. at1i:1

ef Rs.m,om/–~ is awaniexi. F::i:he..='-_'_'

medical expenses and irrtiiziémjzai é's:penscL~;, "a '*~az.1;i*a of"

Rs. !{},{}OO/ — is awatfiedf

7'. Themfons, the: to the total
enhanced inir.-mat at 6%
11.3. finm till wafisatinn. The
shall he deposimd by
the 3*' 'Company within a period of six

weeks. {rum t't"'n_: dafi: of of a copy of this ordex'. On

V. _sI:c'§ &ie;gsasit,AA.Athe 'sV;$éifiéiUVshal1 he dishtxmeri. tn the ciaunan" 1:.

V V the above, the: appeal stands disposed of
tn costs.

35’/51..

Judge

u Aka/bms