Karnataka High Court
G P Raju vs Gurucharan Singh on 20 September, 2008
m 'um HIGH comer or xamwmrm M '*
Dated: 20"' day of September§2£5;¥3;8.V '% 3 "
Present _
THE HOWBLE h!r.JU8'I'ICE V.GOP
HOBPBLE Mr..JH8TICE
«!i=!'..........__........,-1°'-A % "
Between: H
G~.P.RAJU =_
S/O LATE (3;'E€;"P,U'-....EtG0._'~YD--_5
R/A N<).19 j '
s1--:AMA,rmA_ G£€_xEfl V' .
" .__«S;'G'_~v!{A}-§E"M SINGH
._ R/A N:;.Al52
TRANSPORT CENTRE
~PU:§JABI BAGA
NEW DELHI
V ' NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE
SUBHARAM COM?LEX
M.G.R(3AD
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPR. BY ITS MAKAGER RESPONDENTS
(BY SR! A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY~ADV FOR R2)
-000-
‘Ms?’ .s=~ 5-0
actionable negligence is not questioned ‘-…_ L.’€1e
respondent and the same has
Therefore, in this appea} filed ..by__ me” * k
enhancement of compensation t1iere1’is~i’1o 111t:ez1″foi’ »iIs io:
go into this aspect of the mafia. V . _ ”
3. We have heard the for the
parties and perused of ‘fribuna1.
4. The eoxsiiensafion under
the following ” 1.. A’
Pain t Rs. 80,000]-
2. Loss of -‘
treatment ” ” – Rs. 40,000/~
_;eMe¢ica.1’egpénses – Rs. 5,3o,ooo/–
” ofameriities ~ Rs. 30,000/–
. & nourishment - Rs. 10,000[~
» o X TOTAL; – Rs. 6.90.0001-
x o 5; Pemsal of the original records of the Tribunal
ifisdieste that the appeflant sufiexved the following
” “Vi£1juries:–
1. Compound fracture of both bones of right 1%;
%./.,