High Court Karnataka High Court

K Kumar vs The New India Assurance Co on 11 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
K Kumar vs The New India Assurance Co on 11 September, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
.2-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATEI) THIS THE 1 1'1"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH may %  { f  _

 

K. Kamar,

Sfo. Kempaiah,

Agmd about 36 years,  _
Residing at Bhnvaneshwarinagar,  ,  V'
Behind Azaad Biscuit Factm3i;.. E . V  ~  
Hcsaraghatta Road, T.   

BaANG'rAizGRE~«560 05?'.

(By 311. M. Balm as M.  f  a'5u',~  

The Nm'L:gdag  Ltd..
 by=.i_t5=
Regional Oflcc, lviisz-:inu_i?{oM,
BAl}3GAA1;0RE..~,-$t3fiv 02?.

 'B.~--G.  "mhckar; "" "
. A .S'-!o- 
V'   at No. 18511
 CmE$$__,  Garden,
rzgxmaamamwsao 027.

  Sri. C." R , Adv. for R1)
    Misc. First Appeal is am under Section 173(1) (sf

.. RESPONDENTE

_M_.V..Aéi’*against the judment and award mi. 29.06.2005 pamd

MVC No-.$21(}[{}1 an 31¢ fik eff X! Add}. Judge, Member,
.._hiA{Jf, of $313311 Causes, Metmpolitan Area, Bangabre

_ (“SQSH-12}, partly ammg the claim petition for compensation
‘ seeking anhamment of cempensation.

This Appeal eeming on far Admission this day, the Court

tiolivexveei the fifikvvring:

-2-

:!..ED_§_

This is cla’xnant’s appeal for enhancement of compensation.

2. Claimant alleged that, in a road mcment,,.h§E
gflfrvous iiajuzrics. * ” 1 *

3. In supyort of his case, he
and also examined one doctor as L.
he has produced Ex.P6 —

summary, E:-{.139 — medical 1.-_§ Ex.P11 —

case sheet and Exs.P'12 85     D» '

4. The    "d<.-moéuments and fouaad

that, the    each other against the

prescriptiotos though the petitioner was

discharged ‘inc has produced prescriptions upto

on day to dmr basis. Taldng into

Overlapping medical bills and also no

ct)x’z’é2’s3;.)'(:«I«1c1iVIifi.V-V’ojg:2IV3.e’3.¥3:crip1io11s, the Tribunal granted Rs.8,000/-

cxpcnscs and Rs.2,000/– towards conveyance

__ A mgazds to the disability is concerned. though the

–!)oct?f. ~;>x 9 smted that the c1a1m£«m’ t has sufiimcd 36% d1sal3′ ility

T limb and 10% ofoverall body, the same was not taken into

id tie b th ‘n~mna1. ¥
00113 era 13. y C

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appcilant submitted
that, PW-2 – Doctor has ckaarly stated that, the
sustained compo-and displaced fracture of left pamn,g;im–3 _
was operated on 5.12.2001, patcllactemi was
POP, etc. The evidence of the {)octor,}:
as regard to the disabiiity, not b¢ic 1a. ooflsiiléifati = K’
Tnbunax. He also submitted that.’
up period is also not pain
and suflbring and on othgr; is not
granted by AA

6. Company submitted
that, the is in éacaggcrafion. He
submitted and them mzmot be any
disability. . 13¢ hsufizzfiiied that. as mgaxds to the medical

in thousands and without any

and that too, even after discharge

‘ ” als0..’th_tc %bi]1s. produced and in this regard. the Tribunal has

1101;” “;taken into consideration the hills. which are

and other bills not cormbozrating the prescriptions

Rs.8,0G0[- towards medical expenses. He supported

‘V V ‘éthélfizdgmcnt and award of the Tribunal.

3″”

mm.