compensation amounts axe to be raised from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.7S,000/-. 4. Sri Venkatesh, the learned _ respondent No.3, submits that tne i]1j111-'it:':'5.- « the
appellant has sustained would not eyen: .A
Way of the appellant’s day to day ‘ A V t
5. It 3~is’:@§»t appellant has
sustained with fracture tip of
acmeaioiitiea’-tfi that the appellant was
an i]3.p3.:{if’3I3:t.:f0VI’ at Doctor Matte’s hospital.
The Docto1;’S« };1t._ shows that the appellant has
< [– on treatment. The Doctor has
at 25% in relation to the back. The
sam; weaken to be amazed 9% in zelation to the
'owhote Considering all these aspects of the matter, i
deemjt jest to aW31'd compensation as follows:
1. Tawaids pain and injuly 12,000]-
2. Towards medical expenses 7,500] –
3. Tcrwaxtis conveyance, nourishment
and other illcidental expenses 3,090; 2
4. Towards disability ‘?,500[ –
835%.
5. Towards loss of amenities and
matfilnonial prospectus .
6. The Tribunal has g1a11tc’:d”at
The amounts granted henca’n{ sh.fi1i– ifitcxest at
the rate of 6% per fioxfi of institution of the
ciaim petition to the date of 1
7. The lip Vizhc modified award.
8. No order as to costs.
Sd/–
é Judge