High Court Karnataka High Court

Shafiulla S/O Kamarpasha @ Ismail … vs H T Narayana Reddy on 8 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shafiulla S/O Kamarpasha @ Ismail … vs H T Narayana Reddy on 8 March, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
 *  _ KAiMA1§;.OpAs14A @'1:3MAIL SHARIEF)

 '  M. LATUR, ADVOCATE)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BAN.»GAiX}3(t7_f"\]'\(m)\;'._,k,.  "
  ' V   
TI-IE HONBLE MR. gILESTICE'A;'.N'.:fQ'EN:{§G(5§?ALA'VEJYOWDA
M.}iA. Afo#._1'0O9.  

BETWEEN:-- _ 

CHI.  '     
S/O. KAMA_RI{AS,_HA '@ 1_sMA;_I; 'SHA§,RIEF.
AGE: ;.5A.yEARs."<:;;:  A 
R/AT:'NO.--.2', 1§N'*Ii.. ' 7
<:}i1KKANNALAYAO_1J.T,"moss.
BANGALGRE 5 560 0435, 

(SINCE; MINOR  BY HIS NATURAL
GUARMAN AN,9._FATHm2

APPELLANT

 A ".sri1.,1~«iV.9'1'.NARAYANA REDDY,

A AGE: MAJOR,
' '   S /O. DODIDATHAYAPPA REDDY.
,--'R/AT HODDI VILLAGE,
MAHADEVAPUR POST.
BANGALORE » 560 048.

rd

THE REGIONAL MANAGER.
M/S. THE NEW I}\IDIA ASSURANCE CO. L'I'jD..
R/AT UN1'I.'Y BUILDING.





MISSION ROAD.
BANGALORE A 560 027.
RESPONDENTS

{BY SR1 M. NARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
{Rb NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV A.«i§*if”AVt;AINI:sff

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 05.1 i.’2003j*P.ASSEE3

IN MVC NO. 3570/2000 ON THE FILE OF”I’i’HE»MEZMBER.” 2

MAC’I’~V, ADDL. JUDGE. COURT” OF «_ SIMALL” CAUSES’.
BANGALORE, SCCH N05, PARTLY ALLOWING. THE ;c:.I.A:;>.II

PETITION FOR COMPENSATiO_NV_ AND. ‘~
EZNHANCEMENT OF COMPSN-SATION,_ Vi7ITHA.’VI1\Fj§’ERES§T AI’._>

I 20/0 P.A.

This appeal is conning “O’n *~-{Or OI’£:’ie;.~.g ‘ihis day.
SREEDHAR RAO, J ., ‘d;3_}’:j_«x;e.r:-zd fO_i’iO\IVir_1g:

. O §VifiagMENT
The appei{gin{.1/’.péii._§i.'(>I3er SE_iS1.’c3_iI16d frac:1,I.u”e of Shaft. Of

left fe1_I1ur ‘c’} i11€.}i’Ol.’ “xI<3I*I"I(:1e accident. The Occurrence of the

V' _ ac'Oi€i'er.I-1., nveg1igeI1ACE~:"<)I'Vthe driver Of the Offer1di.ng vehicle and

_ €:OVéIr21g'€_OiT'i.'13.SU.I'a1'1ci:e for the vi-rhicle are HOE: in dispute. The

aippéai p¢f'i.S;'II'S only for enhancement. Of compensation.

" 2'._ . 'f'he peI.if:i.OI'1er is aged about H years. The

" f)E'EiI.iOné1' does not have employabie age. However, he has

";IOie:9Ii.ial of eaming after he at1';aI'n empioyable eager. In Izhat

%/

x
_1.

View the 110t.iOI’]di income is assessed ail. ff;.){‘ni.

However. the eonipensatioii is assessed and pe.i_d inre.aCi*-.?anc_fe

even before the petitioner could ai'{eiiii’i.<he eériipioyable age. in

order 1.0 neut:i'aIi:2:e ac:eelerai,ed beriefii-_2. Iiiiilfipies ai"e,.lToV Vbeu

deducted and IE3 multiplier a.[$pV!.yi':3i' of

the compensation. . or _

8. The Doetoitrfias S’L’a§[.ed Adperinaneni disabiiiiiy

at .1 0%. The income lossi.p.i*oporiio112ii’e disabiiity wouid be

(}[-Vi;ielVf,tl1’C income on account. of
disabii’i–:y «.wVoL1Id*d;jbe'”–..Rs«.300(inc:on1e} X I2{rnoriths} X

16{n1i51l1,ip1ievr]VV :VV”VRsA§’57;&.’o’OO. The petitioner is granted

f iov\ra1*ds”;jain and agony. Rs. 10.000/~ is granted

V Aovfamenities and future discomfort. Rs. 15,000/~

is grantedTi’o.*éirards medieai and incidental expenses. In all,

the peiiiiorier is entitled to a total compensation of

iRs;’«E_.32.600/w as agaiinsi, Rs.74.000/– axveirded by the

“iribunal. On the enhanced Compensation the interest

V V”‘p213/able is at. 6% p.e1. from the date of the petition till

payment. The entire enhaineed eompensation shall be paid to

«E

petitioner without. provision for deposit. A(‘:'{L-E’-g)’I.{§}”.i;’I:’&L.§,;I!B;rl;.:’

appeal is allowed in part in the I,e1’1n§ ifl(iiC11{éCi’*2i:;i_}0\?%3.. ” _

=g§jQg*JUDGE