rather than the appellant himself. T0 eatisfy on this issue, We have
carefully examined the wiice documents, F.i.R., stateafient of
Witnesses and the map prepaxed by the police, “the
accident. Ex.P-3 is the map pnepaned by the
show that accident had taken ttfi the road,
meaning thereby that go to his ieft
but he did not do so of the road,
whereas bus is 8;: did not have much
scope to go to V. committed no error in
holding tiiéw vxflzegligent in driving the
autotickshdswuddbut negligence of the appellant to
the exte1V1_t_of _is 91.1 side. Looking to the totality of the
facts according to us the appellant was
_ the extent of 30%, whereas the driver of the
ofiefidifigd vetiteieeéas negligent to the extent of 70%. Thus we hold
_ 2. _ V. 4 _acco1din£;i§I. V
‘ 6′. V’ ‘We_fin€f from the impugned award at pep}: 1 1 which has
herein above that the impugned award is on
Vt side under difiemnt heads and deserves to be enhanced.
W
7. Admittedly, appellant was running an Wezegt’
earning Rs.10{}/ – per day. Thus nxont ee1..*1e”e,
to Rs.3,0()O/~ per month. At the of he wee aged
about 23 years. He had sufiexed shaft femur,
several abrasions and iaceratefi accident. He
was also requjredfio: .. naedical tneatzznent.
During the he was not able to ply
his autofic3<shawt.x;evn which are said to be
permanent loss of future amenities. He
must have also'?-pentV on AI}.-0:11I.'§:S5h1I1CI1i, conveyance, etc. including
gene of i_'¢1t=.xI*etAe.:az11inge;« ….. <4
m~.P1ekee'happe.T.H. deposed that the permanent
in the right lower limb is to the extent of
t 1% entjfias to whole body it would be 13.6%». Despite
..t_tet'_j':..t1tee..aforesa'§giAL:v'ide11<:e the Txibunal committed an enter, rather a
g;-e§§e in balding that his permanent disability to the wheze
V" Vtwas only to the extent of 6%. 6% of total permanent
.et1:'i;sabi}it3r of the appeflant by the Tribune} has been worked out
"T25
' ~ ~ f such other heads – Rs. 15,500-O0
oniy on surmiaes, without them being any factuai '
to come to this conciusion. Thus we 'no
that permanent disability of the appenafit;
13.6% for the Whole body. WE c§f¢1%."e ¢.m:d.:;ea% "
that the amounts awarded to the side and
are too meager. The same
9. In the light off proper to award
the following _ V
a) For Pain _;’..1§sv.?50,0oo-00
b) Loss orazfimnfifies » – Rs. 25,090-so
C) For medical – Rs. 9,5oo~00
d). «TQWa11is3’«:1o-3%’ of –
– Rs. 18,000-00
. e) Lass ~ Rs. 33,232-oo
V (30(}OX12Xi’i=,’ j13,fi%)
1) Towards Laqnizgzyance, nourishment
Less 3(Péa 53,3’70~0O
..u….-»-.-«..-.-»-. _ . n . nu.-.-u—-..
The impugned award is modified to the extelgt.’
appellant would be entitled to receive in all from _¢
total sum of Rs.1,47,862/~ together ‘at
per annum fiom the date of appI;Zcatio3:€1.__tii1V_A.its n
amount already paid wouid be adjfistee§V”iu the is V’
therefore modified as above, ._TheA..V $t;gnde Aéiiietxcfed to the
extent mentioned above, but ‘1::o ofii§:r _a_ s ..eests.