' Rarlrmr
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14"' DAY OF AUGUST 20Q3[ p
BEFORE:
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUS'l"'ICIi1 A*NA1§n3Yk$éRED:3Y ' ' A
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AFPEAL N9; *939301%;oO.3%mix'3% L
BETWEEN :
Sri. Sirii Dominic V
38 years, Sfo T. Alexandea? __
Chikkabanasavadi
& APPELLANT
(By shy-;. 'S'i1.'1"ipa£;iVVé.'"S'sfl1zi:aiifi5-._g§gi'v(§L2£c)
Am:V L ' _
« Mektguia Engineering
Tank Band
" . Road, 'fléijiggfilurc
2. Ogienml Insurance
.. Limited
_ D;«_.O. I0,N0. 213-217
'Nagapmbha Chambers
III Main Road, IV Cross
' ' . 6Ili"iEiIt5?'i;f!6I'i!.,
3
amounting to Rs.I,03,000:'-, the appcifanl is before this Court,
seeking cnhanucmcsnt of compensation.
3. It is cunltendcd that the amounts are nut ad¢é§iiat¢'_'
the Tribunal has granted lower amtyufgis of _13E3_(uit5E'.
the cunvcniiunal heads and has igfl(if6d:;'b6F:iaifi'._t5flI§T "':é1.1:t:h
as compensation towards' ._v¢ii-sabili{yV and 'misaelianwus'
expenditure. The a1noun.!..award:::2 .l€)%~éin_ls Iosé§'of.améni£ics is on
the l(3w*cr"'sid_e.";5 T}i'éf:.;£Vnc0snts. is izikenkts Rs.4,000f- per month and
loss of incesme is Vaxina.r(ie41'T'T£bfJ.1wo months, whereas lhe appellant
was Iai_d upLll)rVScv::1%alAi11(5fiiuhs and lhcrcfurc, it requires all-mund
-» Vflqfinscl for the respondent on the other band, would
Tribunal has [band that the alleged disability
could ..tie.1 be accepted in View of admission in the cross-
A ‘~:Lf”t’.:3:§?:ii1a_inali0n as to the injuries having hcaicd sufftcicnlly well and
{hat them: being no rtmords as to {he lreaimeni vi’ the appellant as
an ifi*p&££i$!li, etc,, it is this which has prompted the Tribunal to
3
negate the claim luwards disability. In any event, the ammmt
granted towards pain and suflefing, loss of amenities as___weH as
iuwards medical expenses and loss of income is
appellant had not eslabfiished his inceme to the
Tribunal. Yet (he Tribunal has Hie AV
Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.S000;’->.e. lit a r.’i1::1»
that has been attributed to the negiinfinnily in
the judgement and awa£'<3i:""'%«.
5. On a wzmiderafidh of mi reeurd, it is not in
dispute that line’ ef11Vpk3’ye{i”_’$£s”&i: driver, His income
having been el. {fie absence of evidence to the
saiislhctiun pr an-.%e Tyimm;-.1: .m.{,. be said to be unjust and
” Hdwever, the awarded towards less of
amenifieé is on .I(:.wer.:side. The same requires to be enhanced
an a1id:iAlie:nal,._:éuni:i)AI;Rs.10,000/–.
The: appeal is acutardingly allowed. This ”
enlitlsd to an additional compenssziiofi. of f
inténszsl {hereun at 6% per anuum _§_i:§tc »aw:;i1§;I§’–. 7
L Iudga
SR
