Hanumakka W/O K C Maraiah vs M D Prabhu Devaraj on 9 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Hanumakka W/O K C Maraiah vs M D Prabhu Devaraj on 9 November, 2010
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana



MISC. FWST APPEAL No.117'l2[200t5 



W! :3: K12. Maraiah,
D! :3 lane Raxgamma;
Agad 41 ye.-axs,

R/33: £30.80, 1031 'A'

I Crass, Ganmh Biock,

Hazfiini hyout,'      

 ....   Adv}
1. nm, Prahm 

Y¥e'.6£.V'.-*,  mad,


 2.  India. Aamram Cm: L1ri.,

; LKa.33§, 1* flmr,

 , Nmr :15" crew. Sampigc]

"mead, Mamwaram,

 Bafialore-*3, rapt. by in

Divfiinml M.an%. RESPONBENTS

(By Sari Vmhwanaflz S. Shaetctur for Respondent-2,

notica tr: Rmpandm1t- I tiispmxsed with)


Tm M’mc.FimtAppea1ia fimuxficr Secttizm.
173(1) of MN. Act agaizwt the Judmmt and Award
datsfl S} 3} 2&6 pasaed in !5¢I.V.C. Na.f:C§532J’ 2003 an the
% of the Mater Accidents Claims Tribunal?
($CC§-1.12}, partly albwirg the cslaim pe’m’$f:.16r1f”–«.Viiee.r

ms-mpensation and seeking .,___f 3 :_t::i’k.


m Mm. First Appwl o1rxi1’§g–::Ax: & L

day. 1:31: Caurt. cieliwred the f’o11m§;vi12_g:A.fiv
Tlfi is (31% 15$ V %mmem of
oompematim; on the fik:

ofMAC’I’, % A 7
was inraate of Tata.

Sumo TN 1336 and the said vaainkzle

mntjwith early hours of morning an

a.I1:1x.Wc’:A:zn NH. 7 near Bagepalii, Madarasa

I Taluk, Kola: man-act in mm; m dispute.

It in dhpute that the ar.:::it;iex1t was caused

aim-.4_. stash and negl:’gm:1t driviw art’ Tats. Sumo

-‘ tn 1* respondaxzct and insureé with 2″



3.111 a claim petitica filecl by the mjureci, an
appu-aeration uf oral and documi evidenme amfiabhe
an rword, the Cmzxt bckaw awarciad wmpcmation in a

3um<1fRs.84,331/- as undem

Pain and ageny ._


Lcmsofwrtmxgduzizzg v_

W up perioé If “‘A1?;s.i’C?;tC®!-

msabaity    r2s;1ii,0oB;_
'7. Lass         Rs.1s,om,u


  R5_34!331 l_

% é being Wiexm by the qumxmm af
ehanmed the sewn in mm appeaz.

gzfmg tzmugh the finding ofthe Ccrurt in the

‘ the pleading, oral and dwumentary evidaezam

…_availa§ ble an mccrd, it 7n seam: that the mmpmsafion

V’ awaréefi by thus Court behw undar afi heads axmpt; the


Mfiical expenws
Conueyv &n:::m’iahmg;;t_etc. ” ‘V
Future medical fl 1- .’


oawnsatiazx awardad far Iowa at’ earning dnufrzg lafi up
perénd and future madisml mpwea appeam true he just

am propm’. So far as cafation

these two lads are enrrcerned, it 73

claimant has sufiiared fi*ac’t11re of tibia. * x

is zmaaad by p1ac.mg’ iamplant-.s tha-

aware urfion caf bans. ”

discinsm that the imam: is be at 3
Iain’ stage. If the the coat of
mwhfl fiat ;’§u;:u3d be in tm
rams of rm: court has
hefl gases. %e:5az’e, while
the zflaknxant under the
afergfaaigi ahmzld ha ext;-andad to tha

. the cazwxzaation awarded for

L W mm at Rs.5,0o0:- is re-qu1red’ is be:

L Rs.m,::m}~.

V A’ Haw axaming to wrmperwatéxsn awarded far has

auriw hid up period, it is am that the

” ‘ t was we:-lam as Govm-nmernt twcher dra.wmg’

salary of Rs..7,500i-. Tmngh she haa psmdimed

daazsuwts to show her incxxmt aha has not acidueevd
axxyev-ider1ostosmwt1’zattheaai:d.oez~uEfimbeis issued
by the propcsr authority. ‘I’tm’efore;-.~., the Ceurt bekrw has
miner: the ixmoma of Rs.5,fl{- and has

cempenmtion for 1933 of salary at’ two

through tlm evidence $3: in fsgan ‘ _ ‘ ‘*

waa on have for 2 mantras and

Ccsurt. belew nought to Er ‘

ms sf inmmn am-mxaid up féaf
The claimant would’ sum mf
Ra.5,00€>[- during lam

up 1: would be entitled
for in a sum of Ra.1S,C}O€}]-

mm’ at me §.a. fi-om the date at petitinn till the


the appeal ma by tlm oxaimam is

H K wmch has aafifiecii wmpezmtmn awarded
the Tribunal, is cram In pay mzmmai

hbfimensatzion witlrfin mm ween frozn we date of

raczeykt of cefizified copy of this Judgment. On such

chspcain tbs exnfiae aznotnnt emfl§1 ixnraest sknifl be
rrsieaseti in fawur ::f the claimant.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information