High Court Karnataka High Court

Govindamma W/O Pogulla Savarappa vs Venkat Rao S/O Ram Murthy on 31 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Govindamma W/O Pogulla Savarappa vs Venkat Rao S/O Ram Murthy on 31 October, 2008
Author: N.Kumar & Rahim


% 3} v5r§:i<A'r_RA43

V mzcnua 0:51:

2) me MANAGER

IN “me HIGH COURT as xAum.A’mcA €IRCflfi:”3_~£’4§5i:IfI£i J %% Y
AT GUi.BARGAg ¢ %

DATED 11415 THE 3157 DAY or 2:e;:1%#:’>1af%5sz’:2a3éa§ax%,% X
PRES§fi? ‘au r
ms aoume M;uu$11 i:%Em(u§4Aa%

“ms Houmjs umusragcg JjAy#An(%«kmum

Em N. %%%%
<3u1.m VsA VAR!§Pi?A..–~
Acseo 52¥EARs% J A
Rf9_AMAR'ESHwARA=_CA?9t
MAW: max
aAr::H:;R.%% %%%%% …APPELLAN'I'

% _ %L§3&*k MAHESH R upm, ADV.)

V .310 Rfiafl MURTHY
~ VMAJGR, R/O VEH-KATESHWARA
{RICE mu.

KAVITAL (PO), MANVI TALUK

ORIENTAL INSURAHCE CO. LTO.,
RAICHUR RESPGNDENTS

1;/W

the purpesevveft convenience, parties are referred

A’i:’n__ eethey ere referred 1:0 in the original proceedings.

:x”””Amareshwa_;’a aiong with her husband. The 1″

2

(BY SR1 R V NADAGOUBA, ADV. FOR R-2;
R’-1 IS SERVED)

M.i’-IA. IS FILED U/S 173(1) or M.V.ACT’.4.AGAI}Si$Ti. r
we JUDVGMENT mo AWARD amen 17.1o.zee.3?9Aesen _i . r
IN MVC.169fi32 one THE FILE C}?-“””‘PRL.CIV1L_’i’-v.’i§ii3GE
(sR.mvu.) & PRESIDING omcee, Amm,» ‘Rfii!CHUtR,w»:.,.
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM; ‘–._PETITH)N~. «.FQ_R._”~.
COMPENSATION AND SEEKIRCS Eriaewceiraerar QF i
COMPENSATION. i

This appeai corminc for .’_i§ea’ri’ri:g_ day,

3., deiivered the foflowing ‘ % 4 s _

This isiu c§_”ai1r.iri.=.’i:r*itfsjfjeepeaiit’23net only seeking

enhancemehtv ,_’t.ii1tV’vaiso chaiienging the

order of the liability on the insurance

companyto paty~vttie»aVmciint”:iuf compensation awarded.

3. -.i-§:!’airr§a;j1.Ai:«aarded lorry bearing NCLKA-36/3663 at

;,’j”éufferi’h§’ vrhichis too””‘rheagre. Therefore, we are of the

Tribenei’Ahas.ev’iearded Rs.S,’,(3DO/- towards medical expenses
abssefice of any material on record and we do not

i «A.pi;epAo§é”A”Ate interfere with it. The claimant was in-patient for
it days and thereafter aiso she was under treatment.
Eiaxring regard to the nature of injuries sustained and her

it age, it has taken considerabie time to attend to her normai

11

about 50 years, she sustained fracture of vertebro_,;’_:””3’ii’§iiiyrrrrAMT
certificate), has given a graphic it
inconvenience which she has bee’rivwV.:.eufferihig-fdriithevtlawet 3
years. According to tovvthe whole
body. It has to be vertebra is
fractured resulting”ii2.r:}ose:i–.of%cohtroéiiivoireriirassage of urine
and mobiiity Words, not oniy the
ciaimant has to bear with the
incorwehiehce for life. In the circumstances,

the Tribunal hes a:wardedv.orih/ Rs.5,000/– towards pain and

hiasfito be enhanced to Rs.25,000!~. The

V.