:14 THE HIGH ceum’ OF KARNA’i’A§i§$;A’.i.f_.vV.: J u
BANGALOIQ3 ”
DATED THIS THE 15*?’ DAY :.’;1i~;IUNE2o:)8 °
k A
THE H()N’BLE MR. ;{{jS’1’I–fi§EfxNA.*§D.BYRAREDDY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST L.«m§kA1§’r;g,%L:f*;4%3;’2oo7 IMV1
BE’l”WEEN:
Richard Pinio;»_ 7.;__ H
Aged _ =
Sun13l’La£t:__3:)n Pi’r;~i:.3g,” * _ ‘ ‘
Residence&of.K£>I;zIgiri;. “t§.IIjv3,
Udupi Taluk } amiv = APPELLANT
(By Pzzvan:ici1Va§3vdra’;’3hc£ly, Advocate)
AND;
-Jo.»-u——‘ nu.
~
Aged years,
Son pF’Achu Shcity,
AA Residsnée of Kishore Nivas,
ff Vflénsanjc Grama and Post,
_Ud:1pi Taluk and District.
% Ofinnlal Insurance Company Limited, Rcpresentcxi by iis Divisional Manager,
enhancement. The Counsel wouid submit that
being indisposcd for at icasl three. months; i
ciuring the period. The Tribunal m»J1i;g:;~a2*ipans§dma ihgi’
award of loss of income during hi’ The
appcilanl having, been lg>.iii” disability mi”
40% [:3 the limb, it wt3aaiA(3..i1*:’§_iI:.1siiiii :3% disability In
the whok: into acwuni in
iiziurct earning capacity.
As the mi’ :1 heavy meter vehicle, the
disabiiity {H314 ‘$912.3 .i:\}éouId scriuusiy impair the aprpciianl
V. A_ in tuiiis «szggggasiiy and in {hail extent, in the am-cation
lhaf’ ht; ‘a.fa.’s* or any ulhtzr avocaiiun ht: may embark
iiil was appropriate for the Trébursai lo haw:
. iV.grantc<i' gziiinpcnsaiion by appiying muliiplicr mcihud as against
i"iii£i:::_»_ai.iji':;abiiiiy am} adopting the income of [he appcliani fur
_p1irpost:s of computation (Bf cumpcnsaiiun. The Tribunai not
i having done so, the appellant is deprived of a subslanliai
3
law, as lhc Tribunal! has rightly found iii;-“ii
substance in the claim, we Lhc ancdical cxfidcncc iiiAi(l=._r1i(2t’I:;_\Ii()..3_<i.t:,i
confidence as to the extent cI'di:;:;ibility'u_r {Etc vc:?y'i'¢:x,i.fs£c:ic;e of _ " i.
any such disability. In £his having
regcclcd the claim an the hcad of
disabiiily, [hers 1iSAI_I(3 WaI’I’§i£:v1.iiiidt’ii’I1l{:ftf1.ii1I;(;!IQE:J.vi ilnsufar as other
heads of claim;-.,vare{‘ic_p{:ccmcd, 1§_icfTribiiiia! having awarded
subsian£ia1__§utnsi’fi1ic5c;; mi warian.l_{(:§ intcrfcrcncc.
5. i_£s..iiiicii1lions, the main lhrusi of the
appcl!:;:::i,’§ caiS§cw.ii:§ ithéxi was disabiiily as certified by the
i5I3dcii’i«i_g3ncr. Though the Medical Praclilioncr has in
his stated that there was’ no damage to the
i ii _ the parlicuiar limb which were injured nor are:
§,l:1c3r:;l§1mi£gcd. The ccriificaticm that thcrc was 40% disabiiiiy
…]’,isi1–‘loi ilcgatcd by virtue of {heme admissions ciiciicd in crims-
“gcxaminaiiun. The admissions by ihemstzlvcs do not render the
perccniagc cfdisabilily assessed as being incorrect car fa}:-3:3. It
3
only weuid mean that imspile vi’ {here being
damage preseni after treatmeni [U the eniilg”
{he disability is preseifi. Even if ilie l\r§Aerj?’ealle_l3r§1i:illée$§’aer’V;;ve Al
evidence was in be disbelieved
in {he Tribunal, the Tfibupal uuglfi: seeund
medical opinion in ‘lie; vi’ its
Lawn er in evidence.
This exereisellleeuiefi mi’ {he Tribunal’s own
assessnfeiif’dieffll;ee:?;l1:x£:l:’elfQ ggagaiuggi praciiliuner, in which
event, as to {he permanent
disabilfily walllfildlhave lei’-be”lal<en into account. 'If [he disability
kept ii1l*v§e"w.l1aving regard lo the limb which is crucial ilar the
l'il.pp6ll§iIll :{::s_e.a:iij;z–v(an with his avmzaiienn as a driver or any such
similar zsféecaliun, the disability would necessarily have in be
by applying the multiplier method as suggested.
— income mi’ the appellant and the disability is taken ink;
ll .maHeL:¢_:uni, having regard to his age, the appellant would be
%