u ~.vv--.- 1'1 I\r'uI|'r'|u"'II\l'l -anvil uvun: lull" RHKIVHFHKH H353
Ifi THE HIGH scan? a? KRRNRTAKR am aAxGALoRE "
narxn THIS was 9th mm? as JELY 2eoaw _5f'"
BE?GRE
THE HUN'BLE MR.JU3TICE amass a$K3nEnfi$[_ =B
Riauel1an¢ouu first figggal.iafi§$fil2fi¢#t8¥J"
5ETWEEH:
K.?.Sure$h, 34 Y9&E3'_ x
S£c.K.Thimmachari " "g.-
Rfat aa.5?, I Main Read *V
3*" Stage, 4"" Blank .""*--"
fi2sava5hw2ranag3;f- _ 1 .''a "fi._ ;
Banga1are--?9,1_ 5"; »'« a_ _,if. C..APPELLAHT
{fly $rih3fir;pa&'vgéfia$fifi,}Advacata}
AME:
1.Natian§1VInsurgfifia ¢e$pafiy
Limltéfig n;Q;»:x;_64,=;a£bagh
Road, Bangalcrewfiir " "
' VB? it: Ma%ager',H I
a;_2}T,$LKhé§i§; Hajnr
's!¢,?¢M;$dwsaf'sab
Rfiat;3#1Q4§; fiakkiduget
Hin§u§ar,'A3anthagur
Bistxi¢t,.An@hragrade$h W RESPGHBENTS
- f.._a3y' sri,§;Haheah, Advncata .for Raspandent $0.1:
"4 figbicg ta respmndent M0,: is dispanaefi with)
--a~o-0-u-
1 Thia appeal is fileé under Section 113(1) af
'-, u*$atoz ?ehicle5 hat against the judgment and award
'*~&sted 13.§.2fifi5 passed in H.V.€.&o.5216!fi4 an the
file cf the X Additional Judge, Kembez, Motar
Azciflent Claims Tribunal, Matrapalitan Araa,
é
an -....»....n... nuns. u\r'It\l1rIlrI3Vat"I nlun wuun: yr ngxmfiggnn pflgfi
Eangalare{3CCH-163, partly allawing the aléim
petition far cemgensatinn and saeking enhancaméatg
af camgenxatian.
Thia appeal aaming an far hearing 'hi3 a#y;'K
the Caurt daliverad tha fellawing;&
JUIBGF-EENT
fieard the laarnafi cafinga; ffik_th§1a§§§lla$t
and tha raapandant.
E. The facts ark a$ f¢iiaw$}?[ ;
The 3§§Qi;é%fibWfli$€ ¥i#£§§ Q f¥¢--Uhfi9l3£ was
hit by 3natfig;X£fi§»§§g§i§x;_ésfig result af which,
he $usfi§in§§" injé#ia§"Ighfi;V%ftar treatment was
fauna wifih_apegfififiéfifiifiiéahility af 30% to his
iawu: limb. "fits agyeiiént having aggroached the
= H¢tcf a ¥fi£$iG9n$ "'"Claims """ Tribunal seeking
'¢§&g§fisatifi5;n tha Tribunal has awardad 3 tatal
sufi cf Rski;$$}Qflfii-. It is this, which is under
*._'$halleng§g
'.E; The csunsal fax the appellant wnuld
E"»§g§%it that umila wuarding compansaticn towards
'*- &i3ability, the gercentage af disability has been
taken at 5%, which. is incnrrect. The medical
8
nmrr: wiuu:-u Ur KAKWREAKR HEGHIACQURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURY 0? KARNATAKA HIGH _iI:'i'¢;'®.f'0£'#, in error in nest
&"3£di1i§'~._ '=- 3 shave .
__Tho""1ee_s::sod caunsel. .1501: the respondent,
~ .1;1:.:a__”z:*;:.Ll:::iz%.__ hand, would vahanantly appasa the
iniould paint out that than medical
priétifiihifir had indicated the percentage at
in respect at the lower Jim at 30!.
‘iiioh*a§tan11sna norms, the disability to the whole
would translate to about one-third and
V’ thoratora, it is not carract to contand that the
disability ought to ho taknn at 151 to than whole
3
a uwn uwwfli ur M-n.mw’-unaaa riI(gT§~€.,L70URT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNWKA I-HGH COURT 0!’ KARNATAKA HIGH CQURT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH
which thy appallant use entitled to damages, _Tho
Tribunal has not considered the anus; * [fag
lvfiellant is therefore hula cngitifiéi” ta ‘
camgensaticn towarfis la: a£_a@gniti§$ i§1§&3§ inuu
a sum of Rs.15,000!~.
6. Acorfiinqly, th§”,ap§oa;’wifi23§iidiId.
The aypallnnt is hayd qntifififi to in adéitianal
cenponsation at Rs.i;fi5,§9fifié §itfi int¢:ost at Gi-
from the data_ a.£__ u;.%%;w;;:a%, I ~ T’
V Judge