High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri C Anjanappa vs Sri Arul Raj on 10 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri C Anjanappa vs Sri Arul Raj on 10 March, 2008
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH couacr or KARNATAKA AT  

DATED 11-us THE 107" DAYOF'MA'§CVH;: 2Q6'B _";_  

BEFORE  =

THE HON'BLE MR. JusncEA;M, VENU:(3DRA{éA"'$Gw'fiA A 

Mlsceisaneeus Hm. Ap!.:ezeV!:A':'é--e;?.3-2 GE  (Mm

sin. c. ANJANAPRA.
s/o CHANNAIFW,'  
AGED ABOEJT savanna;

RJAT 140.121, PAPAN§~:A tétltnaom.
NEHRU ROAD-,~ em GUDDAUHALLI,;
MYS!J!-'IE amp, §ItE@GA!_;Q-RE~O26; A
 _   k    & %  APPELLANT
(av sa::1_. 'aamacmmoagf 'R."'NAIK, ADV.)

 A-RUL    

' S/'G. :':'?r-'R'I'.:~.,5'i. .k'TrS'IEI"'r1',

 ' "' TXM/s'iwFANI TRAVELS,

' «N029. 3.'i'«*'i'. STREET. ULSGGR,

 BANGALGRE-560 ooe.

2; me dnzeum. INSURANCE comwav Lm,
nanzx, SARVAMANGALA COMPLEX,

 AA  HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI,
" --  BANGALORE-560 030.

BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N.V. POONACHE, ADV. FOR R2)

N

This Appeal is filed under Section 173$) raw Act
against the judgment and ewerdeedeted .i’?’;i;2’_fif)? passed
In ni’v’C fio.538i’2G”6 on the nie: afthe 5631*’;-‘.’ddi .3;i:’;;.-:3 X…
Henher t-‘.m…, Metro-;.-oiitep e1,’«.:IA”.-:.a.nt,;s_ii_e.’:-.r’_»v§~.Qi;H;;)if

pertiy eiiowing the claim’ petition “for corn,pen’s”etion an

‘This appeei cornihine “and?
VENUGOPALA’ GOWDQh tie
jcieim petition before the
tribunal, ‘.Aciejirnin_pd’dcorinuensetioin from the respondents for
the injuries him in a motor vehicle accident,

uu§fi’Ich..hae piece on 22.12.2004. Considering the

record, the tribune; hes eiiowed the claim

“-i:’:ieti’t:Eer:..V’_in.i’-part, awarding m..1,12,50G;= with intere-=….

iieissatistied with the amount awarded, he has flied’ this

.. Veppeai seeking enhancement.

2. Heard iearneo’ counsei ppearina on both sides

and perused the impugned judgment and award.
\

X

3. Learned counsel for the appellant

the impugned award made by thetrlburlel’l’e’Thot’.’ju’et and ‘ .

reasonable. Learned counsel po%«ntedt ovuththethtiae

has committed error In takln%§w..the Apercenptege5..of*~dleebllltvL’

at 10… as age!-e medleel!..–.e’ ésieh.-:. |.._m-rned

counsel point’o’ out “theta f.t_1oV:lewe”d f*r tne loss
suffered during the that the award
amount llhoes of amenltles’ ls
meager. 1: pelleted out that there is no

award toweVrde’:’fe.ttentleTntcheroes.

_ , 4. l”.’ea:’rn’ed’~ covunsel for the 2″” respondent Insurance

p ¢o:mpenv..refotlno”‘the contentions of the learned counsel

contended that Ex.R1 shows that there

\,I the eepellent end hence the

5. Conslderlng the rlval contentions and on perusal

-e

the rem-rd the hole: 1′ r eeheideretleh Le, “whethe: the

Liners is raermanent disabtiit” o

appellant entitled to any additional

amount?”

taken place and the appallantshas suflereti tlaiellllnjuriest
The appellant, as could facord, has
suffered the foiiowinoAV:inj-axles;

(1) um-.;.».%ceal at lower 3″‘ oi’ the left

A ::%fi’teb§a; a

as at 1i;f;”t*flro heao’ oaicjin 3″‘~’;
A cutanuryllaa fore head;

(4l)ax gaunt inj.ui*y””lVleft chest
Ithlfasion injury over the left leg and left
it .:l:si:oulder.

has treated tits appellant and according to him,

n.- 5 -1501. I
I .uz.’ru. an ‘rifinau fin

V. _eiiidanca, tribunai has taken the disability at 16%. There is

no material enabling the tribunal to reduce the percentage

of the disability as against medical evidence, which
appears to be consistent and is ‘supported by the

G’ ;us

6. There is now, nosd4lsputei_tiiat ths;1i.a:¢citiant.”ihatiwi?

azttot-ti 2 months. Hence

A ….. ‘-1. , _…_ LI.’ _……..ll…..|. 1., ….
uocumunt. nem: , mu uppumml. I: emu

the difference amount towards i:he>_ioss_.’of”ft§t;.ire:: >

CRDGCWY.

7. As could be seen from” the ‘r.er:crd, vtiheiitrliounialtvheei *

not awarded any surn Sass aufferedvvvfdurino the

period of treetmentv. (goineltieriney nature of injuries

sostained, the app-Veii–a:.’stfi “as aioetv itnzotne .or a-bee… 2
moflthst ..l:-‘4r4’V’=*i_”‘Vi.¢”‘Vi5’EVV-:””‘i’:’ience, he ‘nae
awarded n.nd-e?.;_the amount awarded under
the -iJjea__n.A’AioesVoi;’an1enitl.ee’ is on the lower side. Tribunal
has not1:ewarded..’A’e:n§i:Su:m towards attendant charoes,
though the aVpVne’i’Iant was an inpatient and was out of work

ettendeet ehereee will have _o

F

ii .. giviconsidering the “record, I deem it just and

in addition t-

(L) L-ee of future earning on account of 7,920/-
permanent disability. ‘
K
/3

!

, 41″intim§t!oh:i’ta__the appeiiant in the tribuhai, within 3 man

(ii) Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life:

(ill) Attendant chargas (2 montnsyw isgmid ” A

(iv) Loss of earning during the périodii ” _ _ A g .
of treatment (2 months) . 6′,fi’c’ifi;.«’.. ‘

in the resuit, éyfiéfuiaéiiawed in part and
impugned driimj is to the amount
awarded€.bs;” is awarded which
shaii,i.cadrr_yf iciii-h,fi’:t>m the data of petition till
the irdatd We 2″‘ respondent insurance

c-mper:hy,_whidghddihgs fixed with the liability by the

= costs.

‘ill.-“J

H V ‘3f’i*i’E ii l”.’I’Ii’EcLuu t

i
:2.

-I
0:

E:

f!’
:r
an
:i
c:

E&
:3
ii
an
:’E
5!
:

KSJ/-