IN THE HiGH mum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQifi'§*._V_
DATED was 'THE 7th DAY 09 JANUARY _
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSFICS A:$} Bj{3'i?Ai5i§iAu " _ J 1:'
MISCELLANEOUS FIRSI' APPEAL 2~:'t:-).._ "H.800 V
BETWEEN ;
H C MAHAMHESH s/0 cHa.NNA.?PA" j' V ._
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, we sm_C1::osSV«. ' _
HSIDDAVEERAPPA EXTN, DAVANERE '
. 2. ' ;';,§_A'PPELIA%NF
(By S111: Marissa 'I£';:t,,i:>1?:.:~i;% Apyj .: ~
Arm: : 4' x
1 KS BAS#.VARA;i _ .
Sig') 1R'i§;VN?A1T,1iu%sURANcE CO LTD.,
" QR';ENTA1.,'1NsURANcE
A ' 'TH1uJ'v;_;I.1;: COMPLEX
"~..P.E§_;I?G.AD
DAVANAGERE RESPONDENTS
'}j{E%y*s:s;; Gimsn I{ODIGI,ADV. FOR £22)
1%
THIS APPEAL ES FILED U/S 1?3{1; OF MV Acfi", "
THE JUDGEMENT' AND AWARD DATED 1i0.05.2007"=PASSED EN'
MVC 1510.677/2005 ON THE FILE O_F...ADBI'I'IjONAL=
JUDGE. FAST TRACK COURT-L: DAV.°:NGERE,__ 'PARTLY '
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PE'I"I'1'ION FOR :_€30MPENSA'I'iON. 'L:§Ni¥_'
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT F0]? compmsarxon. »
This Appeal 00mm" g mi ad1m.'V3," ythc 'V
Court made the folkrwing :
The Court seeldng
against the sum
awaltitxji Lfiamangmm (tbr short the
'F"I'C') has awarded a sum of
Rs.?O,{)OO/ugkztith
' the lcanzmd Counsel for the parties and
The facts relafimg t3t:>Laccide:nt which ocacnned on
and the injuries suffemd by the claimant therein
" is 'hot seriously in dispute. The only question that an'% {or
A. coxlsideratiinn is with regard to the contctueas er othezwisc
12
cf the quantum of compensation awarded by the FTC. ._ In
this regand, it is oontcnded that the FTC apart
considering the 1{)$$ of future income has also .
assessed the compensation on the under it ia. a " "
gratnted $11103 acooniing to the
iorwcr side.
4. On behalf of the that
the me has in tact 1'.fto~%%¢§i§ie=:;oe éfifiabk on
moon} and thereafter ha$...rx}mc As such,
the mama does; 3;]: V'
5. I11 a pcmsal
of the wound certificate was
marked zaau'Ex.VP4 examined hhnscif as
p.w.1, _ The Emdicatcs that the claimant had
V' ",g1~i:=,jrou.2% and fractuxes. on the light fxmaml
"£316 alztclior and posmzrior wall of max§]1a1'y
afid ii1ju1'1c' 3. The nature of the injmlc' 3 zindticataad
I
--
fa
awmdhlg the compensation
tcfiafig amenifics, a sum of Rs. 15,000/– would have
[in file clmrm” ant would be cntitlfi to a sum of Rs.
That apmt, the oompcnsaiian awanitzd by the
the heads on which it is ahmdy grmted, I ma that
T oompensaticm tawaztis pm and suficfing, fizrod and
in his crtassmxamination has further stated
subsequent disability ef being afiecegg with ”
would have to be at 100%. I am
same and with regazd to the: L.
even if a mafia is plmvided be
considemd as 25%,_ .
6. Thc1*cfoi§:3;,VL:VZi.)n . firmpexlsauimi is
worked out as welcomed by the
FTC the «compensation
at 25% V.§’?’9#.l,35,0O0/ —. Since certain
amount by the FTC tmvams the
the same. Thx:-.:n::forc, on the sad’ head,
)2
—
r
nourishment and the futuzrc medical tmatumnt is on tbe_
lower side. instead of assessing the cn}1a11eement_ fi:1§(1¢r
each head, I am of the View that in respect af gu %
further sum of’Rs.30,00(3/- i3′ f_¢j”h§ in = L’
all, the appellant/c1a513:_naut ‘*t1ig
mmxpcnsation of Rs.1,5O;dC:Qf4 wij:h.it:fi:§:1E:$~t_a!: 5% p..a. finm
the {Eats 91’ the peution~::1t_ ivfiidition to the
fhff the ifidggmcnt and award passad
by the ‘is compensation shafl be
dcposiigd bfthé 2?’?-.1vAm_bp:6*ai#dcnt-insurance Company
* ._$j.x “ofmccipi of a copy of this order.
‘V aom-xflingly d:is%d ofwith no side: as
t:}¢Q,§ ts. °
sal-;__,
Tudqe
hrp/bras