IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'FAKA AT BANGALORE .. DATED THIS THE 17"' BAY OF % B1:F€:RE. & THE H()N'BLE MRS. J'us'r'i ' ' ._ ' ' ...APPE LLANT (By ' " ..... This M.F.A. _o0ming___;$i1».:f<;;:'__arcféfs: the Cc;-art delivered the fo¥1o1s~§i32.g:- " ' 'A 'A NOfi¢é'::::t%¥' V r<é:§;:;()I*1;ie";I1t '}'~I:f.:;:Z3}' "is...<§iispanscd with. Though this vwith flu: consent of learned CioxunsslxVsi<i'e;§'é§..§s--h:;ard finally. 2. is filed by the injured-claiznanig seeking ..c12})_a:ace1fi'cnt caf compensation? being aggrieved by the % * 3'uag:§:eni%%;1ad award passed in MVC 140.2460/03 dated 11.3.05 " b;+s* kt:i';e MACT at Bangaiore. %;'/ 3. The relevant facts 0f the case are that, thcfelaimant who is an auto driver by profession, (33: 3,00 pm. was driving the aut0--riekshaw when the said vehicle was 3 V near Valani Singh HospitaL a--. 1711 came fmm negligent manner and dashed as a result of which, the He was taken to lleme, Vtihite Field and . v Hoisfiitaliiitvhere he was operated upon andim} éischafge;V'tebliTfi3Iilwew :19 treatment. Cemtending that he has Lsuiferetii disability on account of the giievuus Tzéugminediiiiin the accident, he filed a claim petitien '___g,eekiI5_g_ eeinfiensation on various heads. 4. After service ef notice from the Tribunal the 1" i "respondent-Insurance eempany appeared and filed its written
statement denying the material averments made in the claim
petititizn and seeking its dismissal.
7
9. Having regard to the above contentions, tl:§*;i.l’i}nl§.’ point
that arises for my consideratien is,
W’l1ethcr the appellant is cntitlaalfiplv .acl1i_li’ti«an;’il. _
compensation?
10. On a of it is apparent
that the appellant multiple fiictian
burned ofthe left leg, bone
deep :§g’i;t¢:fl§e:rlv.§;;e+iia1Iy middle 1/3″ of the left
leigl fracture of the shaft of tibia
aittifihulé alrfinl l§§tlt£12=.:l1ac,.csi*ations and injuries on the other parts
::I;.’ftl1E} Doctor was examined and he has stated
waslstlisability to an mgtcnt of 40% to the limb. It
liasl ;{~;;m:e on rccerd that the appellant was an inpatient for
from 18.12.03 to 25.3.03 and tharcafter, tocrk fellow
V n ‘kupllltreatznent. Censidering these aspects, the percentage of
l l Hipermazzent disability in my View vmuld be 15% and taking mate
ofthat and the monthly income of the appellant to be Rs.3500z’-
per month aszd by applying the multiplier {sf 14? a sum of
f;