IN THE HIGH CQQRT OF KARNATAKA A3″ 5AN<3"A£;j@}KEA'
{DATED THIS THE 16'" DAY OF OCTOB.§R, "
@RESENIw-¢A.iWH
THE HONBLE MR.JUS3TICE %r1’R.Jz;:”S’*:”It'{5 HA3/I MALI’M’;é§TH
MISCELLANEOUS ré1R:’s»”zi;;:;I§_J’~;Eg_Q;o.:3é5;:’i OF 208-4(M\/)
BETVVEE?-=ii ”
Sri R}.Fvluizir*E1j£jz’,.t”~._A V
S/0 V.’Rg3machand~.:fa_ ‘ __
Aged aiicutkfl-,5 years,”
R/a:<r\:o.28", CuSi"c}mS & Central
Q»z;~¥:qrte"r5, Jayé'ma.hEilv,
' BVangé}'¥'aré 860 042. ._.APPELLAI\%T
a re nahaéii, Advecate)
21$-'%4é__D: ~ L
AA1, r\¥1.<,."i}]<. Shiva Mmhy,
.. '*~._S/0 M.R.Kare Gowda,
_,-i'~/iajer in Age,
R/at Eswara Temple Street,
§et,
§v”§.2mdya District.
2. The New Endia Assurance Co. Ltd.,
At No.12GO, 1″ Cross, Ashok Nagar,
Mandya. ;
Represented by its Branch M:an’age.r’. V _ V
2 mRES?GNDENTS”,’t~
(By Sri Vishwath S. Slwettai’, for
This MFA is filed unAd’er”Atsect’iQn 173″(‘;1)” of MV Act
against the Judgmentaad ‘3vvard”datet~li 2811,2003 passed
in MVC NoJ605/2GO1;fi1the We ofithe 14″ Admfionm
Judge, l\/lACT,,_Cos.:rtof-..S’maE.l§Causes}[§3angalore, (SCCHW
18) partly al,|t:win_g tlije cla’i.m..peti_t.i_ori For compensation and
seeking entianeieirnent.o§,com;>eQsati’oié.
ThiS’v..P\},3.[}:i§.’gal comii”‘ig«.oié”for admissiog and taken up
for tir;’a’l”r’c!.i§,l3lfQS3l*;,?:l’i’is”day, SR’EE’DHAR RAO 3., delivered the
follo’wi:2g:_– ”
deg:”§U§GMENT
appeila..rzt.~petitioner sustained type H compound
‘ bones of right leg, fractere of inferior pole
“rig*i*it Bycondylar fracture 0? left tibia and
abra..ss:’ons on ieft mitidle finger, left elbow and face, in a
A:i”Vt”l%'{3.f’Ql’ vehicle accident. The Doctor has assessed the
vgdisability of the right lower limb at 4e’Z)% and ieft lower limb
at 38%. The whole body disaipility is assessed at 2;t%
which is incorrect and is on a lower side. Ҥhe total body
%/
disability has to be assessed at 25%.
petitioner is a drive: in Customs &””‘Ceh.tra.%
Department. The disability/:’..1 lmarsf {iota
employment and future salary. Therefore!itljiefiplgieliang;
petitioner would not be entitied to any ..cooipeénsatio;i on
the ground of futtgre l-o.s’;;_oi
_ e3i_r*n i h§Ijs.,, ” ‘ v .
2. :of””l5act’s and evidence the
a sum of Rs.50,GOO/–
appellantv—pVet.i.ti*o;ier ‘ is l”e’l.=”atitle’ i
towa?_rds_ oaiiliii ‘«.s»(Lrff’er.i:’;g, Rs.70,00Ci/~ for loss of
amenitieséi and’w._futu’r’e’t1.i’Ls’Coi’i1fort on account of disability.
The appelian»t;Vp’e’titio’ner has produced the medical bills for
oi”«Rs.64,243/-. However, the Department has
‘Vivvir;iiwfiLs{i:rs,§§§tifj-s:—1i*1:s,« to an extent of Rs.41,CHI30/~. The
g3″e«i:itio_i’i£:’ii granted a sum of Rs.30,000/– towarcls meclical
and tmreimbtirsed medical and incidental expenses. The
i’ ‘.._’peti’tioiier wouid be under treatment for about 6 months.
..I?iie net salary was Rs.5,900/~. The totai loss of income
during the period of treatment is Rs.3G,OOO/4. The
V