National Insurance Coltd vs Smt Amaramma on 1 April, 2009

{N THE H'iGH COURT OF KARNA*i*}'§K1'iV'{%V.: 2   H
CiRCUI'I' BENCHZAT'    
DATED mis THE' :ST 1j«.a;<f'--Q_i«* A:iR; 1} 2009' 

BEi¥*0RE  V

THE I-I()N'BLE,MR 4U'SI'{n.)_  

   fesiooneéieut is that on 25.9.2006 at
aboij "?."30    Mines Phi, the driver of the

vehicle' ;;£, Cf;..B. 'i:;eai:ifxg_"..'xegist1*ation No.AP 02/31 1266 drove

V_»'ti1§';..e _eaI;1e  and negligent manner and dashed

«V"'aga_i13st  eiajmant who was working therein. Due to the

" *   tA}$e c};-11m' ant suffered fatai injume' S and her leg Was

 She lost 1/3"' of her right lower leg. She has

V " * e.1;nۤ.ergone major operation for amputation of her ieg and is

 aeafling follow up neatment. Her claim before the tribunal

was partly aiiowed by awarding a coazpensation of

Rs.5,27,()0{)/-- along with interest at the rate of 6°26 ;3.a. {mm

%?A'"'



the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, 'has

pxefened the pxesent appeal.

3. Sri N.R.Knppe1ur,   Vfgrpfithe  L

appellant submits that   order'.t_  by 
tribunal is erroneous and  eeflé  Tne
learned Counsel sutnnits   committed
error in awaxding  amputation. He

submits th:at"t11:e   not have been

awaatied. _,é;j=;;.d V':i:;"--excessive;'**'V!~ie: further submits that no
amejnnt pslxouidf "have4'Vi;eek3t.aWa1t1ed towards further medical

expensuees.._V Hve tV}1e1;efOie;.."submits that no amount should have

_i3§;en__xa;wartted--Von___th.ese two heads and therefore the tribunal

'  'has..eonLnit¥e€3 error in awarding the compensation.

V. :;'i'§'1e1:e is no jusfification made by the learned

Co%z.n§se1 for the appellant as to why and, neither the facts or

 x  has been pleaded in order to justify his case with regard

to eompensatien towanils the head of amputation and future
mefiical expenees. No contentions at 31} are forthcoming in
the contentions of the appei1aJ:1t's Counsel. Except

menfiomng that the tribunal committed error in passing the

W



impugned order, there are no factual or  =

pointed out by the learned Counsel to substaiifiatedixiis  '

It appeaxs that there is no se1'ious"eoz:zt;:$€'¥  'd V' » _ 

5. On the contrary   

Counsel for respondent subfititsefhat  of grievous

injuries suffered by axfvaxtl of oozropensafion.
is too meage and the is in reference

to the facts~ifivo§ved ..

.111 of any justification with regaxd to

the appellant either on facts or iaw, it

not be epgmpriate to entertain the appeal.

Vt of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being

A ‘:d__evo§.d’ is accordingly rejected. No costs.

a «The amount deposited by the appellant in this Court

V’ * be mansmitted to the ma} Court for disbursement.

Sd/-9
Iudge

Et:-3*