IN THE HIQH COURT QF KARNAIAKA A1″: j. ‘
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10″‘ DAY OFJWE » 1 %
BEFORE: % «
THE HON”BLE MR. JUS’fiCE ,EY’RAREljI§Y
MISCELLANEOUS 1’~’112sT p.PP§A_; {MW
BETWEEN:
s. Pmbhu Son ofshivarayappa, " * '
Aged about 28y;:ars, ‘ ” ” ‘
Res£denceatNo;’103,. ‘ ._ ‘ ”
Cz’o.Ninga;1im;1, V V’
Vfilgge, _JakkIir
‘k”glaVh”g.n_ka”” ~64. APPELLANT
(B3; M/s. Lawyers Net, Advmmte)
hummu-
; Mumli, Major,
hf “vi.
‘ ‘~ .R:::».’idci3;>c at No. G642, HAL Quatlcws,
V ; Rajeshwari Theatre,
()ld’Township, HAL Post,
?:~
has proceeded 10 award loss of incomc
treatment ouiy for a period of two
12s.1,2sox. per month which seiiugisly in-ggnmz a:e.;.;,;,gn1a;;ii;,:iiii%i
just compensation. The Counsel may be
granted kiss of income aE;—liiiarsl Ii)! __six munlhs at the
rate 0fRs.3,5{w;’..’. ; i L i
lint: whole
body at 16%, it apparent (ha!
there is a iiirge of amenities to the appellant.
a_warciiVi”o{7—E’.s.5,O00f- is meagre: and this Counsui
The Ttiburzal having proceeded to
A Rs.5;§3eo}. towards the ma of disability, does not
appclianfs uiaim far less of future earning capacity.
i 3.0 have Men ccmsidcred by awarding a just
” wiiipensaiiun by adopting the multiplier method, which is but 3
3 ii ismali solace for the pcnnanent of his earning
@
Accotzlingly, the appellant is held
additicmal sum of Rs.I,O8,420/- with Q: gape; axummkk ‘
fmm the date ufaward till the date ol’p3symen¥.”‘ ‘ *