E
IN THE HIGH COURT 0:? KARNATAKA. £3ANG;A£g£5__R§%i ”
DATED THIS ‘rm: SW DAY OF 20 % S
PRESENT »T_ A
THE I~1ON’B£,E MR. 1’
~ . ._ _.
THE HONBLE MR. Q}US’1’iCfi:A;VAN4:\%EN’UGb§AL2§GOWDA
M.F.A. N<§.245w;§_):i«:_:;?£)_{")":f1_;"LI\[l_jg:1
B1"~:TwI:13N:» , 4
Sm SHANK1?;RA~?PA,
S/O. SIDDA1.A}-ifi _–.'_ ~ '
AGE: 52 .
R/O. SE,VENEF;5′:_S_ £NDUS’1*R*£E_S,
NO.2’5.R.’V..fROADL’
BANVQALROEL;5.60004,”-…._ — ‘
_ ._ . 2 APPELLANT
[BY SR1=SURESH M.’ ADVOCATE)
SR1 :J2\BBARm{;LI,A KHAN.
wr
/~Q;M0HAMMED DASTAGIR KHAN,
‘ “A:GI:”.: 1.\:/IA-JOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/0;; AKTHOOR MOHALLA,
AEVERFJTHUR. KUNIGAL TALUK.
,. TUMKUR DiSTRIC’I’.
TH E MANAG ER.
“E”I.-{I3 LJNITEID iNDiA WSURANCE CO. E,”‘E”I)..
THIRD PARTY CLAIMS OFFICE.
NO.I43/144. CKN CI**{AMBE}RS.
E5″ FLOOR, 155″‘ MAIN ROAD.
SECSHADRIPURAM.
BANGALOREE ~«~ 560 020.
ll,”
1%’,
u’
3. SR1 K.C. RAMACHANDRAPPA.
S / O. CHANNARAYAPPA.
R/O. KOTE KUNIGAL TOWN.
TUMKUR DISTRICT AND TALUK.
[DELETED AS PER AWARD).
RESPOND-ENTS
(BY SR1 S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND. ADVOCATEff”‘()RVR2}5 _.__
{R} NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
[R3 DELETED AS PER THE CAUSE TITLE]. .. , __ * T’
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 1’73(I_IlO;E “MV’_Ae’T1.Ac;AINé.T ‘D
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED’: 317.2903 PASSTED
IN MVC No. 218/1996 ON THE ‘FILE 0F_TIIE’ IVIEMBEIE
PRL. IvIAcT.. &. CHIEF JLIDG.E}~.COURT GE SMALL’~CAUSESq
BANGALORE. SCCH NO}, PARTLY ALLQWiNG *IjIIE CLAIM
PETITION FOR ,.coMI?I::I\:IsATI’£>N ‘AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF._c0MI>ENsAfI*IDN_ALONG WITH 12%
INTEREST PA. ‘– ~ –. 1 ..
This _l’SI~’::nC~QI1]ll'”.lg on for orders this day.
SREEDHAR RA0;;;«.e1eliVeI’ed the £’oli0wing:
HJDDGMENT
;,\A..li;”heA appei’laI*1t/ petitioner sustained fractmre of
right leg resulting in ampuiati0n.’I3I’; below
motor vehicle accident. 4 The total body
AA Tdisézbillity is assessed at 50% . The occurrence of the
V’ –»3Deident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle
I and Coverage of irisuramze for the vehicle are not in
dispute. The appeal pertains only for enharlctemenf of
compensation.
2. The petitioner is aged about 48 years__._ The
petitioner is working as contractor. in t.he.Aabse1i’ce”‘lof
credible proof of income and avocation, the ii1e.o’1ne._i:s V’
assessed at 2,-<100/- p.m. The iricoihc loss
to disability would be Rs. 1 ,jv200/iplin: Th_e»'_iQss of
income on account of.:".disabil_i_ty*afs \A}*o'ald be
(Rs.l,200(ineome) léfirriiiltiplier) :
Rs.2.0l,600. The peaaeeel f%l'1ee~«..lg1vA?axa:ed Rs.50,000/–
towards». 'land 1,00.000/– is granted
towards " loss: and future discomfort.
Rs.l,50,l–)0§h)h/~ tltrgvards…'artificial leg and its replacement:
fo.,ifftinj.e to tirne.'~e1s;'l0,000/~ is granted towards loss of
laid up period. Medical bills are
'p;:ed«uee.d'"iZpvrer Rs.38,000/~. Rs.50,000/– is granted
towards medical and incidental expenses. In all, the
petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of
___Rs.5,61,600/~ as against' Rs.2,9él,O50/~ awarded by the
tribulial. On the enhanced compensation the interest:
payable is at 6% pa. from the date of the petitioil till
AK
payment. The entire compermation shall
the pe{:iti0I1er xivithoui". any p;jovisi0i1""v'f<§1?v,"d.ep.osi.t.."'
Accordingly, the appeal is partyliy 2;11cv§véd._'in:'"t.hé
indicated above. V V
~'UDGE
é§@§§