1 IN THE HESS COURT OF KRRNRTAKR AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2?%'DAY OF JANUARY 2003 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SREEDHA§wRAQf *; .
Rflma
THE HON’BLE MR.JusTIc§z$;N.sAT¥fiNaRA$mmA
MFA fie 1oé:_¢El3§§3_ Cwwv)
TWEEN
1 RAMALIN§AVREa9Yg’1
$/0 sHAmKARAsRE§9y=_ _ _V ‘
AGED 40 rE§RS,>YAMARE 3ILLAsE
ANEKA3 TQf _ w t , i
BLoRE.RURAL%3Is$,%
. APPELLQNT
(By srifim”DAsA§§§ a A$sTS, Aavs)
_f§EgMAHRGER
V_ NATlONAL’§NSURANCE CO LTD
.’r_MARArHAHALL: SRANCH,
*”BLQREa3?_
2 GHQEBAPPA
nT} S/O.MUNISWAMAPPA
‘”.aGED 55 YEARS, BAGANAHALLI
~.¢PANATHUR 905?,
V§R$HUR HOBLI
BRNGALQRE SOUTH TQ
RESPONEENTS
{By S51 M ARUN PGNNAP?A, ADV FOR R1 }
<;T//M
3
avocation, the income is assessed. at R3.1,5QO/~
p.m. Rs.150/– is loss of income en accefinfikdf
disability.
3. On reassessment of the ~~feetet:«andi
evidence, the petitioner l i$_ijentitle&£zit§_
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and egeny. _a5.i0jaGé/+
towards medical and ineifiéntall.eXpénée3 and
Rs.10,00G/- towards”g;QSS°Wefi;incQme efiring the
iaid up pericd. $s§2fign@0X$D.fi§s,i50(income)
xl2(months} txlfifimultielierlilttewerds loss of
future incQme5_ln{ellQ,the petitioner is entitled
to Rs.??;0§fi%;:*es_ a§ainet~-Rsi1,15,fi¥éf* awarded
by the Tribunel;[ fine fribnnal has awarded higher
compensatiQn;V Heneeqtne appeal éoes not Gail for
enhan¢ement.i”.Afipeal dismissed.
Séfw
iu&ee
Jam”
$5 5%
§’
§E”§%§
sfiifi
