had
In THE HIGH coum' or KARNATAKA. "
DATED -nus mm 3131* pm: on V0
.1111: 1-IOEBLE MR. atiafrzcm mdimq Rania?
9.-..s..e. 0:49. ,' 9
iE'T'fs'iEfi:
NATIONAL 11s;:s11012ANc:E0r:§c;0.1:ri1:;0.0M 0 .0
HUBLI 130:' g A V
THROUGH" »lTSIfV_REGI(_)N1~'..L 05-F523 A
fig? 144; s3tJ=3§;1A12;A1ua
M G_R_OA'D,"'Bfis_NGALORE 4 .560 (301.
'
AD'MIN_ISI'RAT}VE0 ()i?FI'{3_ER .
.
APPELLANT
sax. is $;EE.”I’}iA1§AMA RAG, ADV)
_
»n.n }i’~1:3:5a: Mnagnpna a IRL_A_§-[t_’).”lIR
£.Jl’\l’-I’.’1l=§ n
‘AGED ~A:BC:u’r 24 Y K123
Vl,”.I II
CGOLI, RE’.’3i1’I’rEI’w”}’ OF
AA _ DIST”: BELGAUM.
YADRAVI, TALUK : SAUNDA’I”1’l
RESPONDENT
(.13. LA_X_M_ -11 :2 MANTAGARI, ADV FOR 01 R)
S m.-.. .3 – LED LVS 1′?-3{1} GF ACT .A._rA_INSI’
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD. 19.07.2005 PASSED
r\
ml V’; NO. r=’+47i2uu”2 ON THE FELE OF’ THE l’v’h”JMBER,
0 l’~–J”£\
EG
Afvififl, SA’-UN ATT}, ‘”‘AE’DING CHM
xnu Wuraraa 4,.
RS. 1,015,820] – WITH INTEREST AT 8% RA.
u.
“r::~_I5′
THIS APPEAL. COMING om’-‘es ‘finite BA?’ ; it
THE COURT DELIVERED THE F-{)LLOW:iN’G:’
Jseéysfire
The insuier _t.’ue by the
common Judgment 2005 in MVC. 446
and 447,/2;::<i:».5Ti+;~; guitar 3;; MVC'. 447 /02 of the
uddl. '!'ijihI'Im11a_L Sauiidstti for short
1'viA'C'i' has.eiireiéi."i'F;f1 ap" ,_.n.a.="".
ll advanced by the learned
teiiiiisel fie-1″‘ aypellant is that the MAC-T was not
A ii-,e….iii..g 10′!/I. .’.I.-.eti_11s_l to awaid
lu ‘- f”t”‘”e lees of earniiig due Li disability.
to the learned counsel. ‘Dr ivlahantesh M Hoeli,
it as PW-3, though not the doctor who the
‘ for injuries, nevertheless issued the disability
certificate and testified opining that the claimant suffered
from 16%» permanent. disability. to the left leg; which cannot
be equated to 10% of functional disability to the whole
of the said ciisaiaiiity being 55% Lfiouiyi eh;-. as’ whflie *
body disability.
3. _ Per Connie, le.an}.es1_’ In-.ot.i-se1 .'”_’i-.,_’;l_V_,,’i .s’n¢JI1d_l:l_1t
L La.
seeks to era am t’1’1t4″:”iT1ii§’!”£i_'”fT6.c} L§.ffc’if5″n’.if”It ‘”‘d award as
being well gaeiitefl,” jaatifieti not g for
inte1’fere_m:t:.’ .
W4. i.__p1-g_.x:l. J1; -@en.t and
Awarri. ._niateriai.V”C-n’–~,re¢::oi1i, “–id–*r* ham 1*’ and
documeintarfi i, neilsidezubie force in the submission
1. 1:-§11tI1eA(AI”oe11_iiae1 for the appellant. If the claimant aged
‘ -eooli by avoeation on 3.12.2001, the date of
” injury. sufieit-.c1 16% penuanent disability to
lite l”v1ei”hr§ ‘flower limb, it cannot be said that he sufiered
A ‘ i~fgmvel:ional disability of 10% to the whole body. In the
;1_se1_1ee 9:’ opinion of PW-3 over percentage of whole body
diaauuitv i.. is .1-ed.l-.235 to =st..t_. T1 , 1,f3″” ef the disability
to ‘the lower ‘ D
_w}1?c-la bcéy.
suffer from permanent disabfiity cf 5°76 _.
1
11′ that is so, the claimant is ent;g1ec1.t;5 Jlciéss
of future earning as agai1,1st___.
MACTI In the result, in part. The impugned V. modified Inducing
c’~’-=-***-1:353-a…§¥.~;_,. Rs.32,400_I- for future
R%é’g1’stiyVi;s to transmit the amount in depo”‘t
fglie MAcr»’1aa;~s2mn .
csg