S Muralidhar vs R Ramakrishna on 7 August, 2008

IN THE HIGH CGQRT 0? KAREAEAKA AT EAnaALo$$f ",

QA$EE TEES wag 7" gag 09 AuGasm, 2QGSE'

ERKSBRT

THE HOR'BLE M. Juswzcs §,:;MAnJUmé§fi
TEE EOE ELK MR. JUSTICE fi"S,EA£fiH&PfiRE

fi§FgAm§§§223?_§F 2$Q£

BETQEEEI

1 S amRALIn3AR;§« _ {=* ~.'.i-ww
34 22sM,-s1ai;Am£;x;; Sfifi£AN§A
RXG o?9és:$E_T¢«ag§EsEa.TEg§LE
bEVA§$PET '" * = ~. ;

Koagg
' ... AP9ELLAEw

(By Sri; RA$3HAvEnn§A'@éR sUGuNA R REaa¥,Aav.)

     ..... 

‘;vR,RAhAKR1$EaA
“.MfiJ0§;fR/agaxsfinggfl comyoumn
A3AR33A*$9LsH¥
. cafiwafimafiw
‘, BEL&§R3

THE BRARCH HEEAQER
I§§$1$RAL IESURARQE ca LTD
auzmfix gaawaam

ҤARVA$EI agga

Mélfi Raga, EELLARX

RESPONQERTS

(By Sri; VISEWEEEEH S SHE$?§R FQR R2}

MFA §*ILEz:: Uzs 1”:3(1} o1=*;.:ars;_A1=r””Aé§;1§#£*fiA’.’r3fi”»

mzmazmm Arm AWARD BATED: ?.1f3H20{:3 2*2.=x<ss:x-:,r»–.VV?£_§'V;:e1s2fa'.:
N0. '?20f2GB2 mm 1~§C).485/99) '=.oi:¢:"'*22§i: "~fF*1"I;E '<;.:r.«"-*–~.f'::*HE

PRL. czvzrz. «mnaa {sR.mz.; ax :;;3::sL. mar'; 'K€."2I}'aR_',"
BARTLE %LLOfiIfiG THE " G§AzM&- §E?1T;ofl..* FOR'

COM.PE}:~¥SATIG3:i ARE sEE:<j;v:1q§» as
CQMPERSATIGH. '- .

This ampeal _o5n f.;E’§3i§”~ é;>,i§baEgx’s this day,
PAC;HHAP’U% , J , de3.:7.vered7- f’al-§,¢iw3;_~n_gg-:

gsnrgéfixr. V

The :_ ” this agpeax
saeking :’::’:;.*’;i’__Afi=..«t;2-‘;:=.’:-‘ cozgnsation £0: the
ingzzries in an accidant which
i’2.’v§’a%’.§’.1..’:.’A’.’.’¥:$§§’. viZ>ETi. at about 6.2.5 gm. in frmnt
§.–;:_ tmgle afi Clxikkaballagur ‘Ibwn.

reievant far the puxjpase cf tha

p$=.~;_€:.iti:$2–: .a*:re’:’is unfit’:

6:; thé’ date ef the accidant, the agpellant was

cm foetyath and at that time the Tata

VTS-firintz-“vehicle bearing registratian Ff¢.KA—3éi;’§»i-2259

by the ariver in a rash and negligent

><

manner hit the appellant and he

grievicrus inguries. He was §reateri"'i–1–'£j

Hcspital, Chikkaballapur, .

Hcspital at Bang:-z3.<::re at,
hosgaitals. He ciaimed. for ma
injuries suatained.V%fif_¢#f£§#énfi fih§ad5 inaluéing
far 1933 of incqme, pai@;a£§P§fiff§%ifig, etc. The
Tribunal an f§§§%%¢iati§fiJr§f Efie material an
rederfi, awa§é¢é % éufi gs §$.§5;2aa;– tcwards the
compensa§;$# fiQ#" ' £fi§_.f injuries sustained.

D1ssatisfit~;=g3."MM :_£i=a_¢ 'V.'.arnmunt of cczzpansatimn

" ;3A. -.We '£;éj$%j1=vVheard the leaxnea counsel for the

ap;;%lla..fi"?;. é§e.t2<

Rs.16,161f~ were produc£mL the ?rifiu$§fi[Vifia§a

awarded only Rs.21,230/«. This al$o :é§fii§eé*fiQ héu»k

enhanced. Eurther mare, the §1ai$éfiu figs fifixihg
treatment all aleng and w3§=gafi a#;e fi§ §ttefid fi¢
his duties for a gefiiod q£W$ix_a¢fit§§,_é Hence,
even the cempensat1§n '£ég} %hé 1;us§ of income
during the perio§.gf tr§%£mén§ #$sL%b be enhanced.
The Tribuna;_i@a%:%n%§R %%a§dfi é$y comensaticn
towards $9§%'x§f€3§%é§i§£e% i§fi3, the compensation
awardd f¢r_ffififi:§"m&#§a1 expenses is alga less.
3:22. the Qiaxnzant 31.5 antitled ta
tfie "fi§iiow1fi§~L rafi§1tianal aomgenaatzan as

?aifi.& gfiffiérififi and mantel agany : Rs. 5,068/-

;wf0Ward$"mefii¢éi expenses,
._f$tt@ndanc¢,:et¢% : Rs. 5,000!-

:T¢w#r§$ loss of in¢ame during the
A x'3$3iQd"Gf treatment {far a further
f?e:i0d of three maths} : Rs.9,fiflOf~

' %T:?ards loss of amenities : Rs.25,0GG{-

Further me-.e:3.1 aal exwnses

addzfizlcnal sum sf :

TGTAL:

7. The appellant is gnt1§;§d to afi g¢g@§i§fia;
ccrrpensaticzxn czf sat 8 %
p.a. from the Gate mig§eti£§¢fifl%i;; it锧%gment.

8. In the 1:ves2.13.*’i:V,’~’AV_fE;?;*;§1 allawedmiu-
gxart . In a§id’$;.§c§,~on tg; awarded,

the ‘tha r:.c::g>ensa.t:.¢n =::>f

Rs.5e,Gi:*g_e;’__-~ I at 6% from thé date cf

petztzan till *i£s’.§a§$ent. The aggellant is

_ entit”3;._{é-3:3. fozif ~.__ §:.he: paytnent of the enhanced.

‘ V . Vc¢1’g>;a.fi;3aii:iQ:i ;,«.._

Sd/-~
Judge

Sd/–

Judge