High Court Karnataka High Court

Master K Sathish vs The Oriental Insurance Co Lt D on 16 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Master K Sathish vs The Oriental Insurance Co Lt D on 16 October, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil And K.N.Keshavanarayana


VJIWM M_.,.,n.’ ..m.mmm niurrz WW; ur mm-mmm mm»: mum” as mmsxmm mesa came: 05 m«RNA’mKA were com?

:2. Mr. Amt mm Hath,

Aged abaut 28 ymra,

Son :3!’ Mr. Kama! Kim Hath,
Rawfiixxg at CA Sim*TEo.21,

27% Main, Sector-1,

I-I.S.R. Layaut,

[By 811 s.v. Reade Hulkhamci, agwcggam R;

‘% appeal fiiiied 173(1) of MIV’,
am-. agairmt the judgu1;$1t,;af’mi %a:#a;1i,dated 19/3/05
$31 in Mvthfia. oI§i’~tI’1e..’f§1e of the IX Addl.
Judge, RgEAC’I”–‘?’,_’ Coma aref Smafi Causm,
Mctvopolfiari :ama.%& Bmabm,%T ::%3€H-721. pm-tar
a%ving cnmgzxensafian axfi
whim

_=:m far lmfifl thh day,
K.I«I;_L_I., due% the fillowim;

” by firm clenman’ : in

mat” f%;2m3 an the ma at 9: max. Judge,

M’ Can:-t sf $3; Cauam, Menupahta21′

(seal-I-=7: (set am: am ‘mum? is
V’ VA agfimt flue j t and aware} dated
i9.3.2w5,

2.'{‘heappe1Lamb@1gmixmrm%enbeéby1*1:is
fatkm anfi natural mflisxa, EM clam; Iaetitiasn awldm
cawzmtiazrz as? R$,25§€Q,&®/~ far the pmaazmal

mm: com”

‘hfl’Wm9’ll~h!c

W gwmmmm mm am.Wm;_u2: atmmmmm 2-{mi cmm” W MRNATAKA mm COURE” 0% i<AmA:rM<A Hams mwms

mjurses suatamad by him in the mortar wmhzcle afwfient
that cccurrfi at about 9.83 mm. on £1

rwult of I~I¢re::I-Iozzda Sphandor
I§'a.KA–£}1–U-?314 which

ham agaimt

Kutnialahafi Rand, Hm k m%a;m with
his fatlmz The p%e£:=.j:%i¢::z raézma by tbs
fimmm of :1-ihunai on
assming evidame, after
m the mum' of
the rim qmmmed am compezmation
usnadm d t 11% at

R;a'.5:Zt: .diz~m%ed mygt cf mmpexmafinn

A 6% pa. mm the date at' petiticn. til} the
5: The 'mum af the away.-.ag' vaifimh
V .. ta aafiafig the cmfire award. mm
with the quanfllm af ammmaaon, rm
hm pwztcad tm apml fiztwafia on the
A that the mmpmsmion awardaad by the u-ihuml

under &%:mt heads *3 goaaly inadequate and

/3

». wuuvwuwma.

wummawmfimmfl naun h-VWQH mar” %AKNA¥M(A !~!5G§’§COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGHCCIJRT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH CQWRT

3. Upon wrim cf mfice of thfi

insurm° of the ofimidq vahicie has

his lwrxmd Counsel.

4. We: have Irzeard the ‘V J

sides and pammaci rm

5. ‘l’1me aacidextxfizt The
fact that, as an mun; the awn”:-
elakmt ‘m aha not in
aszidaxme wmihhle
on r§¢:xa:*d’, aomldent, the appellant
mam’ the fame and mm

izijuryj. rm avsamm on mcznrd
A that an amunt cf the injuinm, th-:2
‘ mm} failure mui cfmt ikafiecfiazx far
J 2 svhi;iehvv” i:{va.?f:¥’as mm as magma in mam Haapital
from. 4.529% m ?.3.2nm éuring mam
_ he ummwwt trachmtamy, mum

% mhahaimam, ph}/si::1:hm’apy. fl

MW.” W mmmmm Waww Wum_m;~;.: mmnmm mm: mum’ W mmmnm. MW 60w? 0? rwzwamm mm-i mum W mmmmm mm: mam’

6. The esridwma sf PW.2–m. vdiéfztlqsm

that film $ has suflxed p t_

an wtmt 9f 25% as agaéxmt that: :

an mm, the agpellant has
and to do normal ac:ti’uri’eivw’w;3.d 153 L.

st31d7m and aka it may
The evidmee of pw.2fm rm ahangzgged in the
areas-erzaminaftijnn and the
disability Taxum my
” ‘nljurims, duration af
disability, am am of the
afiafiofi sf Ra.25,{I30{}/- awarded

sa pmxy maaqmm and

% Taldng in to cotmidaratfian um

V at’ the cam; we dam it fit m
mmfinsafian umleur me safi hcad m

_ _ amnzsxxgxy, ‘um award a sum :3?

towards ‘minand aufimng’.

‘?’.’Imughthet1~:.’burmalip1:fit1:natthecEamx1t
was Hated as inpatimt in I Haspital for 65 days
a@.dur@t2wm3d@iw§hispaz%matter1éa&a:3,

/’é

…… …….m..MA g,.v..V.’.: cm-mnmmammim. mrmm mwwm WE’ MRNATAKA MG!-Q CGURT OF KARNAJEAKA HRGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C0337

him, the trfiml has awe:-dfi a sf

Rs.S,€)0G/- rewards ‘con\aeya3::wa,
amxdant eharw’. Ti

dura&tn af umtrneniz as ..

awarded mam’ thh h:wzd;$’aJ3cs ‘

eonmazmtian Ra320.00Of -.

8. é ii:1tf:..:V.T'<:¥:~nafi¢:x°a&e1:1 the
Vhy the c£a'm.r1t as
opm-$5' life, has awardad
a suzgi' 'loss of ' ' and 9.

sung: arf t cfmabifity’.

m his euiclmce has stated
tlm claimant on 3.11.2994 ma. the
§ in waI.I&&§ Writm and
any work 31193 a mt-ml himzz bmirg axfl ‘ix:
_ é.ae»£§i§nua atudiw with guna-alkw waammsa: and bar: was
%%%%aA2mad m uzzdm-go physsazzmpy mi 2:: eontixmg

axrbalmnvukanw. 611 fax bash, the water has %wd.
tlfm whcfie budy fifihiiity at 25% Thmfiefim, we are nf

Vietnam :2

……. ……..,…. 5_.,._m.m.~.mm mm IL..MUiu’ W mmmnm mm»: mm: 0!’ mmxxmm mm mum ow mmnmm were com”?

‘ and disability “Rs. mooni-

VV ” H :3? szlumtianai. gmfim

pursuing atudiw. Thaefare, he in: be

compel-mabfl mwaréa ‘lose cf
whéch we quanwy at 32,20,099/-.
awarflfi 5 51.2111 af R1s.90,CiQOif .. ‘
mpmam’ haw an the

‘a%%3 m, is fijr the

mid ocmfi-r1satix>n. V

:2. mde abm, rm
appelhnti. under 1&3;

‘ V I ..Reg.S{),0Q9]-

..Ra.9o,eos/-

Fair: W:

Mfim Egwww

rm: ma
A “R35 23,368!-

expma

the agpefiam. 5m wiitbci ta beta} aampmmafion at’

Rs.2,9G,Gw/~ as agfixmt Ra.1,75,0%[- awarded by the
aribmsal

&/

Hififi-I CGUKI’ OF i(ARNA’?Ai(A H2554 CW£RTOF KARNAWM WW C09″

w..m.w…«..m nueww mwwflf Vaxgf waamnmacn E-iififi COURT 6? KARNAYAKA

13. Afirdixgb’. this apgl is afiscwad
mhai the mn to

gm 1-. Rs.1,75,000/-. The enharmd g¢n m3sa
Rs.sI,15,fiX}]- shall carry mtar’ mmo:~5%%p.g.. %%
from thc am of peumn_2.~1;1 of

anfinsanhanaiconqxmmafibfiflnfl1B&fim§afifi§é}§rfln§
ixmurex mgctbfi wititfi gix finm. the
date af xaafipt of a award.

imemut, amll

be in fi:iéc{j’:ci§;a;5vm’.i_:iz1.’fli¢ name at the appellant tin

he atftaiiing The guardian cztf the –

” m withdraw the perixuiical

Xé me. mam mun: with inxmmt
V V r:efiaa$ in famm of the ‘ cf

K ‘V V’ ‘T 5% d. £9 draw awarfi aaemrdfi.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

mfiag

‘ Ets*