High Court Karnataka High Court

K R Ramesh S/O Ramakrishnaiah vs Nagaraj S/O Naganna on 16 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
K R Ramesh S/O Ramakrishnaiah vs Nagaraj S/O Naganna on 16 September, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
I-
as
D
0
U
I
9.
I
§
5
¢
;
5
u.
0

. uurrl uuuxl OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 

IN ms HIGH comzw or mmrmm, ~ 
DATED THIS ms 16 TH am or szprmiéftgin am '   

3220123  

ms I-1DN"BLE rm. cmsrxcz

rm. Ho. 4§'54'?:"'or 2bu.5_' gum?) 

BETWEEN

1 r: R amass 5/0 
HINDU NO¥lT.:fiGED;_'30'  
R.-'0 NO 2;3o;1.%.i- 14I.I.A1'n"""
  
rmsonr: _nL?A?:?.  
>V %%%%       APPELLANT

za;}_ 5:1 3  ADVOCATE)

1-'Lt-JD :

    Nnenmm

 .3fiJ'3.i%«V.'Ra'G'-.HO 7 9 mm cam
- AIHSORE BANGALORE

  2  Bgnthn mmexn

V r~m:w% nmzm ASSURANCE co LTD
'V 47, GOPAL cozmasx

 xII_.-'FLOOR. nnznn srmzmr

 nmeuom
nsspounmrrs

 fly s.-:1: G NARAYANA Rm, ADV. non R2)

THIS MFA EILBD U/5 173(1) OF IN ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND A'iihRD DTD: 31.1.05
PASSBU IN HVC 130.5015/U1 ON THE FILE 0!' 'IKE
14TH BDDL. JUDGE, HACT, COURT 02' SHALL CAUSES;

 "

ll-I WIVLVNBVH so mnn-a u.-.... ..... 



 

Mun: vs" nnmvmamnn flswm uMU!(i,..M,}"' EQMKNMIAKA l"E!%.9I"I EJQJUKT U!" K.ARNAYAK& HIGH €395.33? QF KARNfi..TAKA HEQH CQUR? C3? K&RNfiLYAKA H36?! CQUR

BANGRLDRE, Ii SC£'.'.'I-1'-13?)
ENI'3'.P;N!3E!E2'I'I' OF Ci31§Pfl'3SA'I'IOI'¥.  ..

THIS M.F.A. CO!-ENG oamsoa 

THIS my, THE COIJRT ::.BEI_.:3:'*IEE:EIJ'--.__ 'E','i{}!}"' __

E'C}LLGWIHC§: -

Junafifimr

This is as    for

enhancement of  on

31.01.2005

by the
WT’ Baggage % ‘A , .

21 he suffered

gz:ievc:«u5; . “road accident: on

1?.0§.2Q=U1 ta-a%:r,aV’~~’é;h.ift::aci to the hospital

‘v’V£i”fl(BrIi§i_.: hagd treatment. He claimed
Ra.2,6′?, 000!-* with casts and
infiémfiféétfsuppaxt at his cmsa, ha himesalt
e’::&::%:1’i;r:aVzed an 3%.}, and alum gm: exatnineci
(Beater) and 9&3 [Beat-or). 93.2 is
oaly for pxzcductitsan f E1-:.?$ {Came

“~.. ?_maet at the Hanipal Hospital). PW.3 has

stated that, he is an Orthopedic Eurgeon and

has met treated the czlaimanfz.

PARTLY Aucwma ”

cum pmrzrxou mm CO1~I?EINSA’I’I(3H Am: sm1€I1§<:»{;n

~.w-M um nnmvnunnn nswn uuunf ,'£.}.g:' KAKNAIAESA MW?-H €QUR"i' OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA !*§§GH CQURT Q?' §(&RNfi&"FAKA HEGH CQUR"

3] The Tribunal. czcrzssizrlazing the

billy and alas considering the

injuries, gremtad ::o:rapénsati;1.A,Vc;£ ‘4

Hcmevar, the tribunal did

avidranca of 991.3 on %

mat: treated thfl claimant the

accidant in queastion’;-V .

£3 appellant
aubmi ta .”:j’axV’«r’i€<iis:'z1ce has stated
that, ,i:ic;§ 22.5 %
disabi1:f*.:;,f: .body.. Ha further:

aubtaitjiied tL:th.w._£,'..i3niy "'é§Vn the ground that P'fit'..3

A.doc t<5':""£¢ho tremzscz the claimant,

£1159" __TfZ'ri.:}§i3§3.a4iV*~[.Ifleclined to grant camenaatian

diaability. I-Ia further:

that 11¢ aaaeunt has been awarded

the loss of future income: am: even an
. csther heads also no adequate compenaaetirm

granted.

5} Learned counsel amyeaxing fox: tha
Insuxanae Eiampaxxy submitted that, no doubt

FiI.3 is ex Doatcr and in his anridanzza, ha has