Iletween “‘
…………………….._…–?…2 ‘
.1.
IN ‘me HIGH coum or MRNATAM x
DATED Mrs THE 2″”‘z)A*s;( Gr fifi
THE HoN’aLE M;2.;usT1cié3A;)i&iAN sa4AN’m}~aAsouoAR
A m.A.~g.554a O1$ 2QGf?’.'{M.V.C)
Age 29′ jam-gam,
Rgo K3’a1a5i:i3hattiV”. ‘ e’ –
Raichurflistridt.” _ % “Appellant
_; (man Roddy Sahukar. Adv.,)
‘.5′,«’–‘-tj:;_ Li:1ga,’:;:a
\’ years
a ” : Driver
– Rio Maski
Lingasugur Taluk
Raichnr District.
2. Lingappa
S] 0 Vecrahhadmppa
Ase Major
R] o Maski
Lingasugur Tahlk
Raichur District
3. United indiainsumnoe
Company
Sindhanur
By its Branch A. _~3;..R<j§s§)o1i§le'um= *'
(By Sri AM. Venkatesh. A&*.J_{; for R3) —
This MPA7fi.1ed <imader_< SeC1;kx1.17'3(I) of Mnv. Act
mainst the jtxdgnié-u't_a1§d 3-1-2007 rd in
MVC2 No.140l2005 can fik Pmsiiing Ofiicer,
Member, mar, 1«fas:»'s&§ac1c.c»;;u:t+11;":zaiehur, penny aflowhxg
the cl$jzz'"t.._V "_'pcti;'no1;-. ¢o;;;p'a;:nsation and seeking
Vrhi?a€mrA "m$fi¢;ngA%on fiuai hearing. this day the
— –th”e. ,f¢:1lowi’ugV-:v ”
“‘Tms 01%’ 133 appeal pIaymg’ for
” <:_1;1 :i:1za;1ceI§i£:i1t.'..ui' compensation awarded by the Tribunal
to the accident occurred on 14.2.2005' at
"a l_j-'czaut. 11.00 a.m., the c1aimant–appcll£«m1; sustained the
H follewing injm'ie.s:-
i) Compréssien fracture of lumbar first
vertebra without neurological deficit;
ii) Fracture of left calcaneum.
L/5
.3.
The ‘I’ribunal, in an, nasawaamé s;-£%%
Rs.56,41 1/–.
Becauae of the clainfint. there is swel1i1:ag"~i;1 to walk, stand on his from mxmbneas for which Amouiing to the mstricfion of Elexion
by 10 dc-gees and msuiction
fie-xion ofte1’mina.l by 5 to 10
~due_grt$és.. ” *r::e”:.;1é:mant finds pain in left ankle and
f”.m1j”-~..§A1’_y the weight.’ The doctor has opined
am has suifemd 10 to 12% of disability
A fQ_1*AWhoi¢ body. Having regard to the nature of the
x irfiézfies sustained by the claimant and as the claimam.
sustairied fiactum of left ualcaneum, he shall be
I awarded Rs.3U,UOU/– inwards toss o1’fntm’c menities of
life. The claimant is righuy awarded Rs.25,0()0/–
M
.4.
inwards injury, pain and suflbring
mtained.
The claimant ._
Rs.2 1,41 1/-. €i1;1y that much
of amount tow§fd s__’ He must have
spent lost: sight ofl” the tract
that to maintain the medical
ef treatznent. ‘I”hcn:fme,
{he ‘– Rs.30,0{)0/- towards muiieaa
A
in this math:-.r can be: taken as thmc
3 the claimant shaii be avmmied Rs.9,()()()/~
” tawaxd, ofinaoramc du rm” g laid up pcrurxl’ .
‘l’hc-me is no cxmcmte evidence that the claimant has
lest any future income due to disability. Hsrwever. the fact
Ienlains is that the claimant has snifered diaabflity to 0511351;
extent. Having regard to the namn: 0f the injuries sustained.
the claimant. might have sufliamd at least wont 6 to 8% of
F/5