High Court Karnataka High Court

K Shantha Bai W/O Late P Srinivas … vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 29 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
K Shantha Bai W/O Late P Srinivas … vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 29 May, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
§.;;'" .

IN THE men CGEJRT OE?' KARNATAKA, BAN<3g';L{:'&f§:jj  ;_. A' 

DATED 'I'H§S THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, .:2 :)j¢9' 7.]: .. 3

BEFORE

"rag HONTSLE MR. Jusfrrcga ;<;§:=3RE--EDH5;é. ms  

M.F.A. §\E0.1Ci2{§F~i2OOé ~

EETWEEN : --
K.Shan1ha Bai

W101 Late f'.Sri111'V.ras BI1;::i 
$8 years, Nofl :3£*;'Pifr1;:ci1a3i;a » 
13"' Main, 13$$t;;1g€;AjII_-_'Ph2"§sc  
Manjunathvi . "   
I3a11ga1-are-=1(}';»_  11;, 3 V  '-   - APPELLANT

(BY Sti;§dvG§_é¥::'1__ -- f

AND; ._ .   , 
LE. Tim New lI;§1ia;._g'§S::;uI$113ce Co, Ltd.
310.340, Laitshlmi Cbmplex
_" pp'. fg) Vanivfla  H0 s:pit:31
 K.F'k.'i?t3"a-.:i_, Fort, Ballgaloni.

 S.Ab£i}{1l Saleem
A VS/0.' fiisdiil Kareem
 No.43? .}'30th 'C' Cross, Tilak Na,ges.r
'niagfana-gm'
Bézggaleraxil. §%ESP€:N£}EN"}'$

  {:8 "'f  D.S.Sridha1g Advaeaiie for R1; £32-Servicre of notice
-.T".-éfli:-gpcziscd fiéth}

THEE MFR 38 FILED U/S 1?3(;{} GP' EVEV AC? éfizz-'ii§"JST 'THE

 ¢IU1::«GM§:NT AME} gwaxm DATEEEE: <.2Qc}*?§2(:::"a FASSED EN MUG.
No.«4982;2@03 ON THE FILE GE' 'mg AD§L.Jf_ED{Z%E, I=5E§MBER,

Mi3.C'?-V, COURT C3? SMALL CMJSES, BANGALORE {8CiC_H~5},
§¥aR'TL-Y AL§,.CJUi}f§\§C§- 'THE CLAEM PETITEON VG? C{}MP'EI'5S§A'N€JN
:3???) SZ€.E}{H'€€} E?\??i.?ii"§CE?¢iEi\ET C3?' CGMPENSATIGN.



This appeal coming on for final haaring this day, the
Court maéc the foilowirig: 

JUDGMENT

The appellant] pstriticner sustained 2 V’

measuring 1.5 ems over righi. f1’01″1’i’1ZiL ~1»azt_§:rat%;bn 3; V

cm over parieto occipital region; coniiusiifiiii “(§’£Ffii”§.)<'ZA);'3tf31"T}C)1"h_Ai;ZI._'Ti7A{)"i'.:

temporal pcxlar rcgicm in a I_1:1}:x:g::1' véhic1$_é1¢ciLi£:33£.. Tile * V

appellant] petitiioner is nftatad 'f'«h¢_ cqéiuxrence
of the accidant, negfigéiiréit .017 Lthje; 9f the ofiending

vehicie 12;:ff)c;2I'1's::§,r 1§;§'{'i:1'vdisputc.

2. he” “a*.i:?aItit’:d tatai compensation of

Rs.3OA,0{}O)’ – ixziarést 6% per annum from the éatc of

~.;;etit}Lc;:1 :,ff:il1 1:)J13.r1né:fi’t'[‘ The appeilantf petitioner has not

ft) shew the permanent partiai

of future camplicatktzns on account.

‘Qf the acéiificnt. The ay_pe1lant.]p<:t:it:i0ncr has not prodtxced

figatefial to Show medical expenses intzturrtsid for the

' cdmplicafiens arising out of the injurieg.

V,

3. Keepmg in viaw, the over all
circrumstances of the case; the appeflantl .
granted glcrbal compensation cf R§g.V4}Q,O0p;;’–_»
RSLKLOOO/– anmudcd by the*rfibfipa; §jn t§§”efih§n§gg
Campelxsattion, the inttizrest payabla 6%

date of the petifion till pa3r.mez1f . ‘ [tie étppcal is

“f;fl§j*3VTudge

E§NN