M 1 M
IN Tfifl alga coma? OF Kakwgjgxa A?~BéyGAfi0gE;"*
DATED THIS ?HE fim DAY 33 3EE%EE3SR*2G5a_=y
BEFQRE
THE HON'BLE MRs.JU$fi¢E 3 V NR§A§ATHNA
MFA'N§}53Jez2d@6@Mv;
BETWEEN __ '}&kK~ A
K M sUBBg:H_i,g' _, ._. .
AGED A860? §5.YEa§s=}. ~*
szo MATEGQWDA F" ',
D.M.3a33x3;<e@H=cRQss_--'
UMARKEAYAMVROREh V ',',
?£LAKNAeaR%M¥s0RE. V,'
'x * 2 *--'~" . A9PgLLANT
""._{B% SR: M NA$BS§w?SR M/S 9 NATARAJU
,'Assc¢15$gs, ADVS.,)
1,~G'3AsHwANT8, MAJOR
..,u 820 BALRMALLAERH
":N0.Boa3, MAMTRE TERRACE
~'BELAKAaALLI
0PP.3ANNERGHATT RQAQ
BRNG&LGRE
_ 2 m
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CG LTD
DIRECT Aaawws BRANCH 11:
SR: LAXMZ COMPLEX, l5~1?rl9
ST. MARK3 RQAD, EANGALQRE "~~~
REP 3y ITS MANAGER ' **~
M)
{BY SR: A N KRESHNA SWRMYgrRQV.;t§GR R?Z;m
NOTICE TO Rwl DISEE $£m_w:wgg_ *~ 9
THES MBA IS Efifigm via i?3(L} OF MV ACT
AGAINST ?H€ JUDME§T-§ND'$fiRRExS§fl§§ 28.2.2086
PASSED EN Mwé fio.$5?¢2é04 fig fifig QILE OF THE
JUDGE, C@a§i,E§i_Q¢g§a_Q§U§£s:awn) Amm:?:oNAL
MAcT,1vM$séR§,, gfikmgyj ALLGWINQ THE CLRIM
PET:T:ému~%§aa"fgécMéENsATIGN AND SEEKING
ENHANcgM$N@%@EV$OMéENéAT:oN.
CfT3§3*APP§R&~cGMiNG **** cm; FOR %EARENG Tazs
'KuDgY,V€gE.cQURT DELIVERES THE FOLLQWINS:
_ _ 3_ x J U 3 g M E N T
', T&:3'¥gppea1 is filed by the ciaimant
3"w. $%ekifig'¥ enhancement af Compansation
"challenging tha judgment and award pasged in
%
Claim p€tiii©n.
- ~ 4 ~
Hysora for further treatmeni and he was an" n~
permanenfi
patient 1n the hQspita1WVfrOm""6;E,2$O% ffl
25.7.2004. Centending 'fihat«§¥é3hafl*.sfi£fe:éd
disabilitvjgas Ea ream
imfiuries sustained zji *he 'ac¢:deht,
:t._ai; thgL
LL59
claimant had fiieé the glaim petitien seeking
campemaatiog on va£i©us heéds}
4 "Gt 3; Ce f fom fihe
T:ibpna1; Fg§%*zefipgmdant "insurance company
appegrgfi. gnd* fiE%fi£ its written statement
dgfiyxng a€hé a e%ati@ns made
,.fiefi;£io5; whi 1111 '
in the
_Eespe5i, E
Claim
le admltting the palicy isauad
v 0?
in
the sffemdjng vehicle and
ébntéfidihg that the" Claimant is solely
respbnsibie and seught. for ciigmifiaal Cf tha
_ *examimed himaeli as P.W.1 and ewe £m.Bha3kar
§. Baged an. ih€ v3§GVéW_§}€3di§Q3; the
Tribunal framed the folioQing i$5&a$i V
1. Whether the péfjfiiefier prcves that
the accidén: occfiiiéd fin 6.5.2064 at
3.30_p.m.,«€af NEW Safyaji Rae Road
and fimér:Khayfim"§©$d-jfinctiQn due to
_fihé*,$a3h"aéad- hegljgemt driving sf
A ca: bearing Kfiwflfi/M§.2€51 by Ehe 1st
:@sgohdebi"V and tha petitioner
5u$tain@d.injuries?
K)
.A, Whether the petitionér preves that
»,AhéaiS emtiilad to Comyensation? If
§e$, how much and frqm whom?
u3;3a.Qhat Gxdar?
v5. in $upp©:t 0% hig case, ihe claimant
.._. I
as §.W;2 amfi got mazked Ex.§.l ta 9.1%,
wh* e
igflr"
-7-
medica: Qvidence, but the Tribanai héSVfai1ed
to appxeciata the same anfi"-thére£dEé,V'thé7
Tribunal wag mat correct in awarding a»K@&§&r*
compensation of Rs.1,2:¢5g§f--. Gut, hf' which,
Rs.l,}G,278f~ is t@wards"mé§i@al éxbensés and
he, therefoxa, xéquesté; _thi5"» Court to
re~asseS$ the C@mp¢nsafi;eQ*én_various heads.
8; _Gh 73he pQthé:j hand, it is submitted
by the leérnéd Csufigéi for the 2"" respondent
~:n5uramce c§m”am.’ that the an e1lantT wag a
4; . _P Y –
tetixedf Masager 0f Industrial C0~@perat:ve
Sank én&gfihéré was as evidence to Shaw that
the:% @a9m’any logs of income 33 such and
9
.” €heref©:é, the Tribunal wag jugtified in not
.awa:fi:mg any cempansation on the head cf
=future less of income. He further submita
that the assegsment made an ihe other haads :3
&
_ 3 _
just amd prope: aaé doee not ;c&E§;’fQrA any V
interference in thig appea1.c~f
9. Taking n©ta_ ‘Q:’ T:hs._ asovef
G
submisgions, thé only p§igt that,a:is§3 f r my
considerafiien fig 7wh@tb@f*Jtia a@?e11ant is
entitled. t0_ additiQnal.Vcompefi$a%i©n in this
ap ea}? 5 Q.’ g §u: : .*’~W,
a20.”Eg_haVa_\peru$ed the material on
record.” ‘Li fis*,fi$i in dispute that the
ap§ei1ant.wa$5ndt émployed nor was he diawing
flV«sEiafiy and 30 far as the agricultural income
‘.”:g’¢5ncezme@, fihe Tribunal has mated that in
L”;
the ncrfiaswexaminatiam, ihe a§pel1ant had
VF sta€afi’that he had not prmduced aay material
‘I :9 Shaw that he was doing agricultural work.
Considering’ the fact that the appellant wag
-9…
aged 64 years and was a peneiehefi{‘,theu
?:ibunaE was justified ifi net} awe:difig;_emv’
Compensation. on. the heede df_”leee,eCfe.fu%u£e #
iaeome. However, it :é{§g§ fie §¢épfi§e :hat
the appeliant heflmegeiegeedeééaetuee and was
an imupatiemt fog _3$ e%§%3,g%fife§,M.fiaepital.
Under the fiieeemeiafieee{Wee ad§itienal sum ef
Rs.:o,e0e5;e&§ éwaféee Ga fine head sf pain and
eeffegige; 3 see ef §e.1fi;OGO/– on the head of
eomve§enee,’*eeeteefieh£ charges, feed and
nouriehment_ Charges and a further sum of
eg;20;Q0c¢¢ on the eead sf 1033 Of amenities,
‘”fihereb§¢ta%ifig the total enhanced compensation
tdVRe§4G}SG0/- which shall carry interest @6%
. *e’p,e. *§roe; the date ef claim petition till
Kfealisetion. Gm depeeit of the said amount,
“fee game sheik be released to the appellant.
«.10-
ll. Appeal is allowedg i$~ @é:fa ifi” tfieg
above terms.
bkv