High Court Karnataka High Court

Master Sridhar S/O Laxman vs Khaleel S/O Saklin on 21 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Master Sridhar S/O Laxman vs Khaleel S/O Saklin on 21 August, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
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