High Court Karnataka High Court

Devappa Achar vs P Pumalai on 16 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Devappa Achar vs P Pumalai on 16 October, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Malimath
_ 1 __
IN THE HIGH COUR? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 16"' DAY OF OCTOBER, 

PRESENT Q
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE K.SREED_k~i'A»E2.:'Rl3TO:: .

AND 4 H V

THE HON’Bi.E MR.JUS;TECE R;Av’1V–MAL§.M.AfTH”

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A?’P_E’A\L N0;v3579_ DE 2.Q@A.(.M5v)

BETWEEN :

Sr; De\}=aD’Da /\C’h’.3′:V:f’~,.,A’V’ _
Aged ai:3’0Dt’64 ‘y.earS,.

S/O Nagagfipa A.Ch’a.r, ”

Residezwt D1′ Alvetgavdde-,
E3hi~.’én_or Village §:’2″fl{§___F_’_Q.St,

E *KDéTdaDiJra'”‘T¢a%u k, Udupé
‘Di’st.nct.._V …AP%3E§.LAf\.¥T

{BAT/”=S%i ‘EH Shetty, zixdvacate)

AND; S

P I

V’ i,’E’SSri[PT;maia,1i. , Major,

HS/0 9E31C§”‘2Chr’:i%’}’%lJ'{§”3Ll,
Ségiimaré §V¥utE’1irTai<adu,
Ds:evanrTagDwrT(ianuTu,
Sankari Post, Seiam
Distréci, Yamil Péadu.

4/

2. Sri P.Thulasi Mani, Majer,
S/0 Pa£aniyap;3an,
Sahvehu Pahkkadu,
Tangai Post, Selarn,
District, Tamil Nadu. 1

L.-J

The United India Insurance
Co. Ltd., Salem District, ”

Tamil Nadu 4723 S, New
Idapadi Road, Sank-ari
Post, pm « 637 301..,_ _
Represented by 8ranCh”§vEan.”ager,’tav._ ‘ _
V
(By Sri S.\/.Hegdle-.lVlul;l<ha»nd..;. A4dv_o:jate,';fdr R3)

Tl"ili'Sv–.lf~'lF.A iVs*::.;file'cl. 'undei'"~se"<':ti0n 173m of MV Act,
against the }i;:'dq_m'ent–..a"r~rd_ Award dated 3.2.2.2804 passed
in M\!Cr._¥\J<':-.4137_3)'i"9i98vd'n__t'r'1e file 0? the Civii Judge (Sr.Dn)

8.: Membe-_r,’ _;?\dd».i_tic~.na£_”MACT, Kundagaura, partly allowing
the C§3i|Tl’»_V petitiorg font Compensation and seeking
€flh.;3’l”l’CE3lT1€fl[‘=Q§ Cdrngjensation.

r§*ij’rl;:’isVV%’c’?»=§3peal meerning on for final hearing this day,

‘ ShREEEADH»AiR”vR}XO 3., delivered the follewingw

3UE)GM€|”’s£T

‘ ..”i;’%2«:e Vaepellant;-petitioner sustained fracture of right

A and head of right fil:>ula, fracture of 2″ and 3″”:

iinetacarpuls and frachire ef nasal bone. The Docter has

assessed the disability at 25% w%2i<:h aepears to be on

higher scale' The disabiéity is assessed at 15%, The

ex

KSRJ 81 RVMJ M.F.A.N0.3579/2904

10. E 1.2009 7

“ORDERS ON FOR BE_iNG SPOKEN ‘1’o.tt_. ‘ : ”

In the 1)enu1iin’1211e 1iI’1t’ 01′ para N0.2…–.1jé3:ggé”–N0.,3 by

czalculaiion 1’11ist.ake the total Comper:s_a;’i(;-n’.w:1s’di(:t.a:’eVd._;1S

Rs.3O38OO/M. But the total;<r_Qn1pé1*1$£iti0n gfizi-yeiblé 1{} 1ji1e'*

appellant. would be IT*I{§1'1<':r_{"-€if1(§ 2: sanxe is

cox-rected. The tribL1;sA1_a'1"..«_ has _awardZe-3! cormfieiisatioli of

Rs.276800/». The C01npe1'is§1tikj'fl more ihan the
just e11tit1emc:m:'.' "A:{'.'COI':L7.1'ii1§§1j,~f~;': t1"1€ '.2'1;5_]:nc:v¢1__I_iS dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

*– %%%%% JUDQE