Loading...

K Raju vs M Ramanjanaiah on 3 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K Raju vs M Ramanjanaiah on 3 September, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao H.Billappa


EN THE HIGH COURT OF’ KARNATAKA, BANGALORE:

m:I’E1::> THIS THE 3RD DAY or sEPrEMBER,.A’–;é0<:§§ '–' *'

PRESENT

THE'. HUMBLE MR. Jusmzlez ;o:§'SRf:?E§'H,?§R' 85% A'

. . .

THE HONBLE MR. ‘:a1_,_vB111§L:$.VV:éér%f}ja
M.F.A§ NE; 945
BBTWEEM t ‘ ”

SRIK. RAJU, . ., _ ”

S/O.KRISHNAI1’Es?A,”””‘5L_ *
HINDU, AGE{>..A¥3.,’,’=._ ‘

BANGALORE ‘NAORTH ‘ 2

. ._ APPELLANT
{BY SE13. RAN’L%C}i1iN BRA, ADVOCATE)

‘V §A:MANJANA1AH,

-A «.31 O’. .M.u’r§:sWAMAP?A,
mN.DU,’;,.MAJ0R,
“R/3:1′ #316, HONNIGARPET,
D”{)f${)ABALLAP{JRA,

V ‘A BANGALORE [)IS”I’R§C’T£”,

.’ 27;.’ ‘SRI FIROZE,

S/O. IQBAL PASHA,

MUSLIM, MAJOR,

C,/0. $R’§ M. RAMANJANAIAH,
No.3 16, HONNIGARPET,

¥3OD¥)ABA£LAPU RA,
BANGALORE DIWRICT.

3. UNETED INDIA INSURANCE 00., I;m.,
MANANDI COURT,
27TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 3% ;I3L0I:I<;,j;, ~
EANGALORE – 560 011. " "

(R2 DELEFEB) I _
(BY M/S. RAJ AND REEDY, ADVGQATES FGR R3):

THIS M.F’.A. Is FILED ‘«”u/1s;’-,;.73{«1) 01? Mv Acrr
AGAINST THE JUDGMENTIIANB aIII.IA’R:;.I1:>A’I’ED 26.09.02
PASSED IN MVC No.335/95 .(‘:»P’,锑I*~I»I§.;~«._I«*IvI’,;I:”i CJF’ THE PRL.
czmx, JUDGE (SR;DN.),:A”‘Bfa£\IGALQRE *_Ru”RAI,, I:)Is’rRIc:r,
BANGALORE, I?aI?TL;Y ALLQW’IN’G “‘I.’§IIe:_ c;LAIM PETITION
FOR COMPEN.S;%.Ti:Ijp¢_w_ AND :sEE.I<.ING ENHANCEMENT OF
C{)M¥'ENSAT¥"ON_.,".. …—- I

This oii"'f0i; admission this day,
SREEDHAR__RAG;' g¥«,_,_ k1e1iv_1=_:i'e§ tilt: foikxwing:

' E N 1'

'§'b;:": _ app;éEIa1§t]§3eti?ioI1er sustained fracture of tibia,

iVi'buV}I'a",' axgxd of knee join'; in a motor vehicle

"a:;-éI:_I¢fi1..:jf*zi§g g:;g§to: has assessed the totai body ciisabiiity

at XAE9/_-'Eu. ufiT§:i'I;ioncr was studying in PUG at the time of

'~._ t,he acci6.::_I"I{. It is just and masofiable to infer the nofionai

at RSQOGIF3/- pan. The incame ioss propcsrtionate to

V. ciisatziiity is Rs.3G0[–~ p.111. The {)(ZX'.I11I'I'€flCt3 of the

ufaccidmtit, negligence of the ciriver of the ofiimding vehicle and

fly

"I«2EsI=I)I%:D':I3I~£';'s:'; V

coverage of insurance is not in dispute. The appeal A'

only to seek enhancement of cempensatiea,

On reconsideration of the facts -:a:1d I evi£;§e;é;::e,V" the

petitioner is entitled to Rs.5{}0()O/ ~ fig: W

Rs.2()0{)0/ ~ {owapds less if ameifiizieg arid %

Medical bills are ;3mdL1ceg1 far is
granteci 22345900/~ £¢s;;;;;,1g;s;\-. incidental
expenses. Rs. 30€_i{'i13eome}" " )$18{mmfipHer)
$64800/- is Rs.5()O{)/~ is
awarded period if one year.

In ail, the is; flg of
Rs.1548OG/«m againet by the
éiiévéee. 011 the enhanced
can-yensafieli is at 6% pa. from the
flie v_
Sd/~
JUDGE

Sd/–

JUDGE

G49′;

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