IN THE HIGH caum’ or? KARNATAKA AT ‘
DATED THIS THE 7&1 DAY OF JANUARY’ V’ % ‘ ‘
BEFORE V _ _ V’ V_
THE HQMBLE MR. Jusrlcfia = V’
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST
BETWEEN:
SMTVEERAMMA
W/CFARMUGAM ‘- _ .
AGED ABOUT ssvmas ” 1
R/AT no 135, 3€~3im’MAIN, am EROSS .’ _ j
BT19! LAY0UT,V:?m>.§:?A.a;E”. V
BANGAL56*V.v-~:;_ …APPELLAN’I’
(Bysfi;:.:xALYAh’»’R, . ~
5
AND :
1 .DIv1sIm~§AL MANAGER
E=i’E§.-V’ INDIA A882}-RANGE co LTD
_ ‘NO mxsnmx COMPLEX
* ..op9V vaim vms
HjO.SPI¢T”é.§;;- ROAD, FORT
‘–BANGA’L~OI’?E
V V _ 2 “‘MR~:§1’sv?’OGEsH
3/0 SOMAPPA
.. m”:o/’16. 4%; MAIN
‘~ V 1»; G PALYA
‘ BANGALORE DIST-560076 RESPONDENFS
fag M/S : M s RAJENDI-EA PRASAD ASSOCIATES. ADVs FOR R1}
L
‘or
THIS APPEAL. IS FILED UIS mam OF Mv A33′? Am:NeT’*’–J ”
THE JUDGMENT’ AND AWARD DATED: I2.11.2(}Q’? ‘:?A; IN’
MVC N0. 7973/2005 ON THE FILE jc:R1T1~3E_-‘AB’I:>z,..’; ..11;*1:f’GV1:,=-_
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES. MEMBER; MAC-‘5’, i*»{E’R”x~’tOi”C2i..I’l’iAI~I 1
AREA, BANGALORE, {SCCH.NO.9), PARFLY ALLGWI-MG
CLAIM PE’I’I’I’ION FOR COMPENSA’I’I0–3_*I AND ‘~s1::.EIs;:Nc; ‘~
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATEOE. _ V V ‘V
This Appml warning on ‘flay, the
Courtzmadc the followiflfif
The is’*.&e’nl1ancemcnt of
‘§§$.’90,000/ — axsrandcati by
the Tribuhél z’:§.::;:vii*§i§*i’o.7~9’zf31
2. appcarm’ g for the @363′
. and jzhe
= relating to the amid’ ant having oocuxreti
V oJ:2 the nature of injurk:s sufiemd by the
, ‘A ” 3.111 not sent)” usly in dispute. The 01313’ question that
ecmsidcmtion is Wifll mgard to the quantum of
T –. ”<:x;:1izpe31saiion.
1:
4. At the otltsct, what xtaquizes to be ~
the Tribunal has net awmfled any a:_;1;91,_1nt ‘A ” ‘V
crf future earnings. In this regaul,
stating with xeganil to the disability? thié
as PW2. The doctor has stated figs
he the limb at 51% p.é;. §,k;3’d _.g{§a1¢ 30%
Though this is m: what has
been eansidemc: bggfiag said disatifiity is
not the avocaticnzx of the
clam Iii _c1a1:m_– petition it is contended
that she and it is finther ‘mdimted
in the_ .evidc1¥ca_ ti1a£* s:}.iec i$.ras alarm doing the business of
V’ ?¢nd’}3;g Agviijiiiadnuts. Consixicring the fact that
wmzld invohrc manual work and also
thfi ant was aged about 70 years, the sand’
by the doctor would ham: to he
for the purpose of g ccmpensation.
J2
5. In this mgmd, apaxt from the said
other aspact which requires 1:0 be noticec} tha£
Tzzibunal has reckoned thc ww at F<'$A. V5{),'«~«_
my view, the same is too meagre in " "
since this Court has been of
Rs.100]–~ in respect ofogolfics ti) be
mnsidemd. If the wage" per day
considering the of the 1nuih'plic1'
of 8 would M guéfi cx'1k:ulation, the
c0331pens.~_§atio n A A' at 30% wouid amount to
36,400/-."« said aanount, on the other
hcads, the awarded torwanis pmn' and
" the aaci mend' ' ant:-11 expenses is slightly
it is conmnded that further tmaimcnt
is 'airs per the doctors advice" .
That apart since this Comm: has new mclmnad the
.___"'T'.'w£ig¢s at higher quantum, the loss of income during the
*,i$i': at311€:nt period also requires to be cnhancad and thcmfom
L
TV "~~fikCf
on ail these counts 3 sum ofRs.15,00D/– is '
in all would amount to 51,01,400/– _.which is: '
R.-$1,012,000/-. The said enhanced
is payable with intcmst at 6%- _v1':§.–~a…V
with interest shall be
within a peliod of six of a ecrpy
ofthis ordezr. 1
In stands disposed 012
No Order a$
Sd/-
Judge