Loading...

Siril Dominic S/O T Alexander vs The Partner M/S Mekhala … on 14 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Siril Dominic S/O T Alexander vs The Partner M/S Mekhala … on 14 August, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
'   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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information