1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANCEALORE
DATED THIS THE 21*" DAY OF AUGUST--'2'§Q§%"..' %
BEFORE: % % T T
"rm: HON'BLE MR. JUS'l'lCI§1.1AIx§-;$.{§J'I)u'B%?RAi{¥£B_§§{ «
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST ;:g_§;ggAL Na 1 31 W;
BETWEEN :
Mas£crSridhar, 10 '
szo Laxman * '.
Since rx;i{;t:r"V:tv: ;'>rt'i:3§:_I1tc<j_'bylzis A __ V
Fathefand rxatilral g}iardi'e.;j' _
Laxiliiiti, 4% yeaifi-_V .. '
Sfo Sathyappa ' _ "
V Cross, Bzauthur " é
Daxfanagere " * V APPELLANT
. V. " { .7'§('ina)&,!V&;'I;'AI««t:<:rthy, Advocate)
l. 'Khai§:éi,v ycsars
ff.» . Sakiin
" * vbfaiksanahatii
* C-hallakere Taluk
Chiiradurga Distyici
(Owner of Tata Sumo bearing
Raga. Na. KA----35/'M-3006
2. The Divisional Managtzr
United India Insumncs
Z
Company Limited
Divisional Ofiicc
P. 3. Extension
AkkamahadeviRoad V'
Davagere V l§_EsjS?()Ni.)}£N'i'SL
(By Shri. B. C. Sectharama Ra(3;i:i}'X¢3vucat7cf ._i.i'_i..'v'!"'1.-ii:t3SiIi):!L;:)!'iif.iiiVt:3I3i Nu. V2
and Respondent No. I dis;mnsed..&\?i!:h)'»
V ac’:-mask. j’ V
This Misccilancougg’Fi;fsEf__15;ppéai “i~$j_..F’Icd under Scciiun
173(1) of the Igeictxgr Vehifiies Act,i’*.,_agair;2st the judgcment and
award dated 2’2.’9;;;2i)O6’paS’§6£i iI34’MV’E;”No. 93852005 on the file
cf the Ad(1itiC$’naI”~-Si;ssis3::–:;v ;Fnd’ge;”..:Adéitieaal Mater Accidents
Claims Trimanéii, fast’ Tmék’ Davangcrc, parily allowing
the ciaisszifisetiiisgin f6}” ‘coi12pensa1i'<in"and stc.
..i}1«: for hearing this day, the Cuurl
deliszereci flie f<3ii(§'€V'_i!ig,2-»-
guggggmx
A = __Cutmsc:! for the appcliant and the Cuunsei [hr the
resfxonficgnl.
AA _ The appeiianl is a: minur, whu was the ciairnani bclbrc
k¥._ie’–E’e’folor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He hat} suffered injuries {wcr~sidc9T3:;d théii I.l’f1′<~:-rt: uughi. fit: tgsvtfir-5
ail cnha.nc6mt%n£ uftzvcry head oVfi:.§_£ z.ii'a1_:
3. While the Cuufi:§£:i”f{ir–viV:¥1r;é would point out
that b’1.’:._é’11″fg”.1*-.mlr;:d on the very say of the
appcllafil ‘and basis [hr further cnhanctzmeni.
Hmxftngexg a§’se:fin,.i¥ie afippéilanl was treated as an in-paiieni for 65
‘ ~ ,_A;;v4″y:~;A:§a1i:§i’A§h’ie;«§t:s::II’iygifidicaiiva of the: pain and suffering that the
undergnntt and hence, the Tribunal ought la
have grant-.a””highcr amount under the head of claim – pain and
3u,{I_’¢riIig.: T116 Tribunai having restricted the amount in
“RV$)’i’f};00Of–, in my capinicm, {ha appclianl is entitled to an
T “”é1{idiiional sum of Rs.20,0{}0f-E under the head :3!’ pain and
szslfczing.
6
Henctz, (ht: appellant is tmliikzd 10 Rs.2(},000%’~*”wé{fE:.. u
22$, 6% pt!’ annmn {rum the date of award. a£w;1rdV”in M}:-*;r”‘?1,j”
respects is not disturbed. This is;-.fg1li1§x§c:~:i.V: .
{IV