High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Jagannath vs Sri R Dharmaraj on 25 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Jagannath vs Sri R Dharmaraj on 25 November, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
,  :;-  . _" 'i3angaId1G 00 1,
" Rep.b}: its Manager.

.  ( '-3:  K. Vasanth, Adv. for R2)

  N This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Sectimtx 173(1) of
M.V.Act against the judgment and awarci cit. 16.11.20()'?' passed

-3-

?
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 9? NOVEMBER 2088 
BEFORE 

THE HOPPBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH 8.A1j{i  "  

 

mscsL1...a.uEous mas? APPEAL:_!i6.'3fl3   V
BETWEEN:     %  

Sri. Jagaanath

S/o. Lakehmana,

Aged about 33 years,

Rczsidixig at.

Bhammcnahzflfi Village,    ,   
Chitra.d1u'ga'I'aiuI«r8s I3ist.rict. " _  i  '*f_'.»._3\PPELLANT

(By 531%. N. Gopa1a1(1ff.31;'a3/§§;*Ad';;f.)g  

1. Sn". R. n*n"'a%":a na;~a't_j

S/o. Ra'.:1gap3;aa,,"   
Major by"agé,_ '
Residing ::--1'i<,_ ,   , 
1{0tta1cra11atii_V1I1a,ge_,  ' *
Piiali }_?"uait, Hi1*iy11.ur7T'a}uk',

 . A1chitV:a:iu:ga Dishibt... _____ .. »

2. _V'i"hc' Ozientai 'Insurance
Regional 0' Vj<Lfe:ANo. I44] 145,
v Lee Shoppizxgflomplex,
-- M. G.ieoa'cI, '

.. RESPONDENTS

in MVC 350.369/20f)? on the file of XIII Additional $111311 Cause:

-2-

%
Judge 85 Member, MACT, Bangalore, SCTCH-15, partly aiicwiug
the ciaim petition for compensation and seeking enhancemergt ofs
compensation. I ”

This Appeal coming on for admission this V.

delivered the following:

This is an appeal hy the cia1’mant,;”sce’§¢_ing¥

conzpensation ix’; respect of “j1i”e3¢’zm$<°:zit- in " V

M.V.C.No.369/2007 datad 1:53' f'fov_¢§ $f¥3:<:r'v._f;.'O{}.'7." file of

MAUI'. . Bangalore.

:2. The claimagu. éffafs nf the road near
R.K.Naid11’s I{A-16/’I’-3953/ 2954
came in a rash. jdashed against him, as
a xtsult of wlifiickk fgzistaisgxed gxtievous injury, he
was’ taken to BVé1;sTa1fcs§V1115Ia$i’1Ve;,§:” igibfipimi, Chitradurga Where hf:
{lI}£1f3I\E’€Il§.5< fixation. £9 reduce the fractuni.

about F.'s.1.00.0()O/- towards medicai

ex1)e1}i§es"é:g;{i he was awning Rs.6,GOO/- by worldng
1;- éVs' V:-.z_ masofi '¥'§t;§<:§ fiibunal held that the accident was due to rash
' 1fl§.€g1i.gcnt""'c?;:iving of the tractor and 3130 held that the

" ' « . –{3é=mpan3r is liable.

‘V ‘ A» ” As mgaxd to the ccmpcnsation, the Tribune} relying on

– wound certificate, EXP? —- discharge summary feund that

1
,,§«~%:;*i««»

-5-

é
the 321111′: diszwzbriiity, aha cLa~1i1nant is €I1¥;ifl§3(i for cempensaticm on

libs 11r::ad af 1035 of ftxture income, which wotlld some it;

R3.’f.2,13,,112{)/–.

‘7. Ensafar as loss -.:;=f zxmcnities is concémefi, thé
having noticed “tilt: in} uries and its effect an thé.;vI§.£3T1e’:bS_€;£.amér:i,tics “3352.

on the lawer side. The same is enlxafiéed ~ i./’
.5>x « ‘ 3$:?3$/”\/ V iorrflstéd
Accmtiingiy, {he claimant is sntitlesi .5015:x:.s{?9;.3;9Q;’:_ovm~ and V,’

Bt.?§.12.Bfi

above the <1:-zxmpensation aw;-mled V€£1c*§'V'I'ri~b';:¢;§:s§1..5.sIi:1i£iv.viigzterest at
6% per on thej:if§11a§ié¢ci.v<f{3ni;}énsz§tio:£i the date caf

petition till payrncznt. V 5..

with this f)a11;ly allowed.

u Sdfud
%%%%% Judgg