Loading...

M R Lokesh vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 23 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
M R Lokesh vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 23 February, 2010
Author: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 23"" DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010

BEFORE

THE) HONBLE MR. JUSTICE: ARAWND   

MISCELLANEOUS FIRS'I'APPE3A.L NO.1 E385..COjF~V.2(}«i3:7'.{1V1V)"  

BETWEEN:

MR. Lokesh.

S/o. £\/LP. Raj6l'lCii'E1.

Aged 24 years.

R/EE 4/A. 1*' Main. V_ . --. _' V

M Cross. Lakshn1idevir'x:agar.'~_  1  AA " 

Bangalore A96.  V    "fj..,}_'..APPELLAN"l'

[By Sri. :§,'.S}:1_asgtr-L':  2 

1. , The Of1o.1'1tal'lns'urar1ce Co.Ltd..
 XI. No.«6._E__3_3..v 15: Floor,

_  I Maif1;__I)efer1ce Colony.
   Encliranagar.

A11  Stvélgé-;..§3angaEo1'e,

 By 1:155; 'jM5ar121ge1".

 2. A  Lokesh.

 SO/'<3. PL1rsegowda.
_ A ''R/ 21. Veena Provision Stores.
' "Sidda:oahal1i,
Dasanapura I-iobii.
IE3a.ngaIo1'e South.  RESP(J\EDEN'I'S



sustained by the Criairnam. in '{'1"i€=. mad trafi"i<' a<:(:~.ider11.
which occurred on 24.08.2005, claim petition in

i\/IVC.N0.2528/2005 had been filed by the: g1;;)p"e,i»_Iant

seeking total comperasatitm of Rs.2.75.0GO/

\-"c1I'iOL1S heads. On c:()z1siderii1g _t.he._7p'1'é21<5i;ii1§gsv'Van{;1 '

evidence on record. the Tribtixial 

c0mpensat.ior1 of Rs.1.£ii8f0.QO/4"" vu:r.1_Vcli'<::v.v1f "':._:'f'0i.ivoWing"V'

headings:

1. Pain and Suffmingsié"    q:VR3.?»5,OOO/W
2. Loss 0i'an1e11ities of-life if   f   10.000/W

3. Meciicine €ii1c;IA:;:i/%\\1'0\9I3i=fii5\1§;     

ex;penseé37[g   . _' : Rs.3O.O0O/W
4. Com/eya--nce*. £TibS}~1§,1"ud . food
and i11Ci«demfc11'_eXpei}--sés : Rs.9.000/--

5. I?'1ii€:i,1i*e losé of it-:g.__1f_ii.:.r1,<g : Rs.54,OOO/W

 r_i1"cg1i<:21l expenses : Rs. I0.000[«

 "  Total : Rs.}.,48,000[-

It,Ai'::3__ jixdgnieiat: and award dated 24.04.2007 which

"isTnow..W'assai1ed in the p1'ese11i' appeal seeking for

" _ ' 'a{n'}1:Ji1(:€me:1t. &'/



4. I have heard Sri.Shripad V.Shas€:1y. learned

Counsel appearing for the appellant. and S1'i.C.S_li'3_n~kara

" -I'.

Reddy. learned Counsel appearing f().r<""  mfst. "

respondent. Notice to respondent, No._.1 lliasl -E1Ieex'11

dispensed with by this Court.

5. it is the Counsel
for the appellant not taken into
consideration evi:d’enmc%e” who has been
exan1jncc1..a.vs§’–.:v has opined the
whole V nomoonsideration of
this ‘ in awarding a lower
comper1sat_4i.o:1 heading loss of future

earnings. It.”‘i-s._also contended that claimant was a

*rnaehine.’op’erat’or and on account of the in}uries

sus1ta:ned;—- has resulted in reduction of his earning

capacity. and as suoh he seeks for enhancement of the

o(irh..per1se1.t:ir1 under the head loss of future earnings.

He would also contend that multiplier to be adopted is

24.03.2005. they had noticed that there was a_head

injury with 21 laeerated wound and as su(%h.«jhef–.Was

referred to NIMHANS and aft’er

Doctors at NIMHANS he ‘tot./_i’,th’e

hospital. namely Mysore Hospiitaliiliylieielt

working and he has stated c1ai1n_ant_ ‘was-:’o’perated”‘

on 29.03.2005 and on interxialg fixation

of plates and screws; 0 stated that on

29.03.2007 fine “-_o1aima1_1:t uexamimzd and the
following c’orr;Vp-la’i’f1t.s w’ejrr-: “iiotiy_ee:jl: ‘
1} Pain and “sV0Vtii’i°i”1iEss ‘1’i”wris_t”Wv

2) Loss ofV’g_1’ip4arid vsei*ewin0ga..niovements

3) Not able to’worvk {vii.li. riglit hand

4) Not a§ol’ei§.o1ii’t”weight 0′

Onleliniyeaiye)s;aminlati_on by the Doctor ~««~ Pw.2, he has

‘foopined as follows}; 0

ll Wasting.’ right forearm and liancl muscles

1

‘ Vypreiserat”

L\”-‘ ‘
. .

0 wrist movements restricted by 30 degrees

&/

of grip strength present

proportiorlate imerest shall be released in favour of the

appellant /Ciaimant f0rthwit:h.

N0 Costs.

C3.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information