IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 13"' DAY'GF«AIjGtJST_
§g§oRE:%%
THE HON'BLE MR. JusTi{§}s ANAN1j'13'£RAERI~jDDY
MISCELLANEOUS F1 RS_T s479():é*2oo4 (MV)
BETWEEN :
Rilcsh Vikrmn'_'VS§i§:§ l;i: 3: "
S/0 Dr. _
N0. 101, Tmpicaiyillas» "
1' Ma.in'Road,'}G. Ni. "P3133" _
(By Shfi;AVinS:}:w;§\fiaI:li"$:Sf:1:§;f}if., Advocate)
_C'<:'a:n;pa;3y Li:;i_i.!;ed
. Ems Manager
No. I,.~Shi{:1kar House
31*' Fl£)or,VMekl1ri Circle
RMV Extension
A' Bapgalort:-80
Ramchand
440 years, S10 Kushiram
Ramchand, No. 27
SNS Plaza, No. 41
. APPELLANT
Kumara Krupa Road
Bangalore~56O 001 R.&;s%P{§isr1)2ér~IIfsF% " A
(Shri. A. N. Krishnaswamy, Advmgzzte ;Ei)i~~ J
Notice to Re.spondent--2 dispensed with)" * ».
Vtyagr
This Mimcilanwns Firs!----Appeal' is flied. under Section
173(1) of the Mover Vfihiclmé Agt" ~ the judgement and
award dated 21.08.2004" 56.1/99 ml the file
of tha XII Additional Judg¢,V--..Membet;'v.Mct;:f' Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Bangaiore. _(SC;§CI+¥'-S}, _:;l|nim'ng the claim petition
furwmpcnsaiibn
This V» this day, the Court
deliveted%'the.f{';lIo\Vi31g:f"=._
fV flfi§§M§ET
.. £h<V: for the apwllanl and the Counsel for the
A 2. v.__'"I'i$:s1AppcllanL while he was riding it scooter was hit by 3
by the respondent! herein, as a result of which, he had
injuries and was admitted in Hospital. Even afier
VT llfiilmeng he was found with a marked disability of 45% to the
V A. lnwcr limb and it is on {his basis that he had appmachcd the Motor
§s
erroneous and hence, no credibility could be plncxsdon.
of the Medical Practitioner. The ‘I’-rihcnul T.
evidence cannot be faulted. There is in
same rvquircs to be dismissed. it
5. Alter having on record and the
rival contentions, the and has also
examined to establish that there
was l0§gg..&).r iifcr The appellant is entitled to
the ea The Tribunal ought to have
awarded at distinct head of claim. Given the
ofzdisiihiiiiy-“to the particular limb, the appellant was
Rs.l5,000/– towmds toes of amenities which
he Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned,
Tconitexiiion of the respondent that the same has been paid by
it -Iniiployer is only partially eomect. As contended by the
npiaellant and from the evidence of PW-3, it is clear that the
V 5 amounts were ultimately recovered from the salary of the
2/