High Court Karnataka High Court

Santoshkumar vs C M Anand on 3 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Santoshkumar vs C M Anand on 3 March, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
IN THE HIGH comm" OF KARNATAKA. I3ANC2M,;QOf§i§'V;~ " 

DATED THIS THE) am DAY OF MAR<:§_1;:" '19- C A
PRESEM'  A  A A
TIMIE I~~10N'r3LE MR. JU$T_ICEA:1{,$F2I§EDfiAf2'A'R11;OV  "

THE HONBLE MR. .,1Us_T1c1::"A;1~§.j.'Vi;-e.UG0PA1;A*'CowDA

M.F.A. Nb:2742'»O'F 20:()-'.Lf'_'{M\:V_)
BETWEEN:--    ..  

SANTOSHKLJE3/1A1;2;'"' _. _   ,  " 
S/O.       '
AGED 23  ' . .
R/O No.43'/.Ai;. '1&='i"'?j\j'1?.c).:~:»i3j'.'
AsHw;ATI::reAG=A}%,_» 'V » 
BANGALORE -- 94;.  " ~ 

 ~   .  APPELLANT
[BY SR1 T. NARAYA-.NA--SW~AMY, ADVOCATE)

       

 I if  C'.vMO§A.%vX:\J;A1\ED.

_ OS'/O:QVILDTEDUKRISHNACIMIARI.
. AGEi'1\2_iA{JOR.
 R,.{'O. -VECNKATESHWARA LAYOUT,
::m_m'AMA;\z1 TOWN,

 A'  KOLAR DISTRICT.

. .t...\-}"

NM/S. UNITED IND1A INSURANCE COMPANY LTD..

POLYTECHNIC ROAD, CHINTAMANI TOW'N,

KOLAR DESTRICT.

BY ITS MANAGER.

RESPONDENTS

[BY SR1 K. SURESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2}
(R! W SERVED BUT UNR1?*IPREZSENTED]

‘(V

3

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173 (1) OF
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:.1.;i2.’2t3O3I

PASSED IN IvIvC.No.6I9/2000, ON THE FILIIZVOF VII’

ADDL. JUDGE 81 MEMBER, MACT-3. COUR’F..vvOFi”~S1V’LA;LIT,

CAUSES, BANGALORE {SCCH~3). I?ARTLY1–‘ALI;o’wINC”fI’I~1.E'”

CLAIM PE’1’1TION FOR CoMI3ENSATI’0NANm_”SEIé:K1N(;;
ENHANCEMENT OF CoMPEN’SA’I’I’QN.;f~..–* ” ”

This appeal is C0miITIg.._Von for QrdersV..:’vthisday,-_”

SREEDHAR RAO. J .. C1(3liV€I’€’Ci”-IV1′..l’v;3. foiiowiijlgra
D cm’: i
The appellant/peiiiiieney. fIjaCI.ure of right

femur r€Sultif1g”«jI1″.8.I11QL11LEi'[:i91″i-.'{i’f=’i’igV1’1i. below knee in a

riioiot A/’€hv}’.(‘I’Ii’€,:i.C1CC}..a.’:V€VV1;11: Ii’

2}. 4. The céCCi’uV1;rIen2C3’Cf the accident. negligence of the
driver of iifie ()’ff€I”1d1’1’i’g:V3Hi(Tl€ and Coverage of insurance for
I.he.f§IehiCie are riot in dispute.

petitioner was a student at the time of the

-VE-,;tf,’.’?(,’,}’.(V.’i’v;’}’.:1′”t~.I_’ II.:iV!I_h§: absence of Credible proof of income, the

iiiieifiiiiie assessed at Rs.3000/– p.ff3. The percentage
of .diSa–hiIi’i3? is assessed at 50% of the whole body. The

§n_QOIT1€..~ibSS pmporiioriate to disabiiily RS. I500/~ pm. The

of fuiuie. income on aceoiini, disability wouid be

1500{in(1ome)X12 hs]X18 (rI’1uItip1ier)==324000 /~. The

petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.5000{J”/–i-«i

pain and agony. Rs.1.00,000/– is granted_.t’oigifa.rds.i.:iovi.éirdflé~,;: artificial
limb and its rep}aeemC’i’it_lrori1’mtiiiie ‘tVontirI1e’.«’R’s.IVdOOO/- is
awarded towards ioss oi; up period and
Rs.5000O/~ is:.Vg_,.–%lLn:i.ed prospectus.

in all. the;’pe%._it:ior1e’ij vis._Vj-gra11’ted”‘.gtotal compensation of

Rs.eo9oo’o’/’+ei..’:i;a.g Rsiseooo/« awarded by the
II’ibi.1HEli’., eompensatiori the interest

payable isdat E}%Vf.p.ai._ iron: the date of the petition till

V’ H ‘ ….. .. V

entire enhanced COITip€I’1Sa1.iO1’1 shat} be
payabie to petitionei’ without any provision for deposit.

appeal is aliowed in the terms i11*CiiCa’L63C1 above.

Gps”‘