High Court Karnataka High Court

Shazadhi W/O Habeeb vs Jayachandran S/O Venkatapathy on 30 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shazadhi W/O Habeeb vs Jayachandran S/O Venkatapathy on 30 January, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao S.N.Satyanarayana
__ ANn,£x"

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BAN§A;fiRt$ * 

DATED THIS THE 30"'£mX OF JANUARY€é009 ' "

PRESENT.~W»

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT:cE;K,sé$£bHAR R§Q_V7"VT

Afi3=.
THE HON'BLE MR.JusT1c§ s{N;$AT2AwAgAyAfiA
M.?.A;~x&.2€9e52bc3§fiv;

BETWEEN
SHAZAEHI 4

W/O HABEEa' _ V --.»'a}  »__

AGED 50, R/AT»MQ,53,<-'v ~_ ,
GGVENDAPPA-BLOCK§f3I"CROSS;"""
DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI_'g  _ .'
BANGALGRE'~ 56O.G45=_'2

'QV"% '-_'u* "a_"' ... APPELLANT

{BY SR1 T.PRAKA$H, K.V.RAJU, ADvs.,)

"r  i'. wJAi$CHHNDRAN 5/0 VENKATAPATHY

T'AGE9%3s£ KANTEERAVA srvnxo, MAIN ROAB
'*_9"*CRoss;"sARVo9AYANAGAR
A 'YESWAHTHAPUR
"zBAKGALGRE - 560 022
(DREVER 0? THE LORRY BG.NO.CNJ 3456)

"25 JAYACHANDRA S/O SUBRAMANYAM
=-.AGED 3?, R/AT fiG.261

TRIVENI ROAB, GOKUL,

IST STAGE,II FHASE

BANGALORE » 560 054

(DREVER OF THE LORRY BG.NO.CNJ 3456)

3 THE'. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE C0 LTD

6%



NO.33!A, IIND FLOOR, IST STAGE
INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE m 38 ;«. _*»
{INSGRANCE COM?ANY or THE LORRY ss".uv "
NO.CNJ 3456) r""°~'

4 AREEF S/O PYARU l_ :q(/
AGES 35, R10 GOVINDAPPA BLOCK;
DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI V ¢ 1 '
2mm caoss .j*, " _ v_ ;
BANGALORE w 560 045 (SRJVER OF=TH£"
AUTORICKSHAW BG_NO.CAKH3323£ "*

5 SALEEM S10 ABDUL KHABIR< '_LA _

AGED 45, R/AT v.Kg a;c;L.M;a}, g
324, waaagan ASSOCIATION, " ~x;'
No.6e8,,12TH_cEoss,j9:LLAmNA'GARDEN
BANGALORE'5=5so€o84'{DR1VER"a? THE
AUToRIcK3HAwqBG.yQ;cAH'3323}

6 TEE NATIGNAL INSURANCE CO'

BANGALGREVBIVISIONAL GFFICE

NQ.?2, 1::*FLoQR, ~.'
UNITy.BU:Lm:§G'A§&gx£

MISSION RoAm;.bANcALoRE ~ 2?
(INSURANCE COMPANY 09 AUTQRIKSHAW BG.
;NOkCAK 3323) '

.    ..... 

'»uW/Q*LA$E B M VENKATESH
V. aQ;1o4,aBaNN:GANAHALLz VELLAGE
.  ,DOORAVANINAGAR
'_ BANGALQRE ~ 560 016
'* 9 =" ... RESPONDENTS

«(ax SRI G NARAYANARAO, ADV., FOR R3,
“‘ SR1 R RAJAGOPALAN, ADV., FOR R6
R2~ SD. R1,4,5 & 7 DELETED)

‘THIS MFA ES FELED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT

R”vuaQ$INsT THE JUDGMENT AND AWERD DATEB: 30.9.2ao2
mssza IN we NO. 3055/1993 on THE FILE or THE’.
/MEMBER, MAcT., & xi ADDL. JUDGE, coma? 0? SMALL

CAUSES, MAYO HALL UNIT, BANGALORE, (SCCH.20},

Cg/,

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAEM pE:’1′:’1*}….=:.>_1’x’a’».’:”.*

COMPENSATION mu SEEKING aNHANc__e~1_EN’T’~..e%_*—- .

COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMENG or»: :g*o’§i’—oRpi:Rs.;.1:a.ié;y;”‘:
same: no 5., DELIVERED TH;~;_ FoLLow1r§G.; ‘

JU.. 9.._C%§;”?._?§3£§.’

The appellant~petitiQner wee a bafisenger in

an Autowrickshaw. A*ierry eeliified with the Auto

rickshaw. Ae e reeeitf t§§£F§titiener sustained
fracture efibg§fijeone%’Qf;rignteieq and 3″fl rib.
The petitieeer ie epegetee and implants are put.
The tdtal flee? disabiiity to be assessed at 10%.
The Trieunel hag ieundetnet the accident occurred

solely en aecefifit 5? the negligence of the lorry

fi&ri?er.V* The occurrence of accident, negligence

‘ef the ierry driver and coverage of insurance for

the _ierry Vgafi in dispute. The petitioner was

‘working as a vegetable vendor. His income to be

feseeeeed at Rs.1,500/- p.m. The income loss

“epreportienate to the disability is Rs.1S0/~ p.m.

2. Gm reassessment of the facts and

evidence, the petitioner is entitled to