High Court Karnataka High Court

Manjunath S/O Veerappa vs Hazra W/O Shamudeen on 13 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Manjunath S/O Veerappa vs Hazra W/O Shamudeen on 13 March, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
.. <1 mwnIuzxl'll'lIl'I1Il'I pun'-III \I\I'|II'\I III I\l"|l\I'l"§Il1I\I§ rII\.'ll'1 HUUKI Ur      

1
IN THE HIGH C'.OUR"I' 0F KARNATAKA AT 

DATED 'I'HIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH  %_% 

BEEDRE

THE HOITBLE MR. JUSTICE  _ 

M.F.A.NIIi"{'1IV1c lorry fen accfidcnmny an

:.'f':I"t_h¢  Iiivf claimant, while the claimant

_ V".I':I;:::en the door, consequently, the ring
I   mwafrgghthmd of the claimant dis-articulated.
   sufiered other injuries. The authority
 afier considering the material on record

  "I*«:V¢6£1cluded that that claimant has aufibrcd 7%

I/>



n.uuu1---u-.---- nu.-mu an-run: vi nruuva1u1I\r| I1I\:'rI uvun: \J'I' RHKIYHIHRR HIV!" LKJUKI OF  

disability

3

and awarded compensation  "pf

Ra.16,1-30.00 paiae.

2. The disability certi:'§ikié;a;'i;e. A   x

following iI1juries:-  _
.& ht Hand and Wristz?»

1.

2.

Disart1’c’a:;_Iatio3iV’ t}::¢:.’V_L 1’ight finger
at pmximal _f.)h31,Ei1:1X -.

fingers

” V51-ight r:1atacarpo-

the right wrist joint

..painfL11°.. 4

{J1

. Mcfiiiements at distal phalangeal joint of
little finger are severely restricted

L;4§’..–i*4Tv:ioven1ex1ts at the distal phalanx also

restricted cf ring & middle finger by
60%

.Grip function of right hand is

irlade-quate

\/>

…….. uuunl vr m-uwunu-mn rI:urI i..!J_UK! or KAKNAIAIKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH {IOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 1

-4
X-ray film 140.3614 dtd:20.4.’.2OG5 can zjxrcr

show amputation of the 49* digit at thug _

proximal phalanx of the right

The Boater has opinejd

suffered 15-20 disability.

3. The a heavy
vehicle canngt. O “Effectively as
before. He the right hand. In
View otthe is not justified in
holding the suffered 7% disability.

The lfgcctcr ‘4:.V1s-»v.ey:1V2:>’i’cfk*:.c1;1,tioncd has opined that the

physical disability of 15~2o%.

to the tcstality at’ the facts &

T ‘V ‘#3, this Court is of the opinien that the

= has suffered 14% disability. In view of the

was «=1:

the compensation has to be awarded o11[}4%

.].’ciiaa.bi1ity. If it is so, the claimant is entifledtgn

Ra.32,260 .60 paiae.

W/5

..-.-.. ——-.u —. .u-u.-1-.«.—u-n Iuuvwru.» nu nu-nuvrursnrn nuuwu wvunl vl Iunnlinlnnn nsvn BIJUIII Ill’ RRKHHIHRH HIUH UUUKI U!” KARNATAKA HIGH]

i

*5 an ‘~,:gg 1;’:§’.Tt:%_..<,;'»'___

4. Accordingly, the foilowfing orderisrzndcwj Lu

The compensation awardeg by the :é1f§1:ti”1§§>I’it3; u

belaw is enhanced to Ra.32,$60. Ofl:’

Tlnny’ Two Thousand mm. mm.

entitled to interest at the “pew
from the date of accidc;iif_,” Vv

»%%%%sd/3′,
Judge