High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ibrahim S/O Mohammed Anif, vs Sri. Suresh B B on 7 June, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ibrahim S/O Mohammed Anif, vs Sri. Suresh B B on 7 June, 2011
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 7?" DAY :35' JUNE 20   V. .V L'  V'
BEFORE H 'V   .
THE HQNBLE 1\/IR.JUS'I'ICE S:d:3.rLAs.H BV.23:ffi1£ 

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 1\fo~.;6'359A/2:): ' _ 

BETWEEN:

Srilbrahim,

S/0 Mohammad Anif,
Aged about 34 yraars
R/at EZWS Quarters

80 Feet Road, Koramangala V __  i .   " _
Bangalore.  ..    '   .' APPELLANT
(By Sri.Sharana}:é_pé§V   .} V

1. SI'i.»».C3L{I'CS_hVV':B.BVVV *1;  .  *
S / (3 Sri. BL I*#1[,--V Bharama'~«Gou:ru:1ar
Ageé. Ma_j0r V  L' V   V
R/a:Ne;':8/:3.:.3,':sAam::h:~Ni1a;,ra
1" MaiVn.Road, Mareiiahalli
Viajayansigar,' Bangalofe.

  wranager      %  

& VV"i'heV=§3rié:?:ta1 Insurance Co. Ltd,
_ V ' ~ CVB0¢'1€:3; .VSi1€__:shadripuram
V __»4CI $2,, Swastik Manandi, Arcade
--A SC R0aVf_i:L Sheshadripuram
»._Bang_>a}QV:f§:.A .. RESPONDENTS

  {By Sri.M.,SéWri Raju, Adv. for R--2;
V' VVV.N>O*L§t;€'_[Q R-1 dispensed with)

  M.F.A; is fikd undar Section §'?3{1} sf MK? AC3: against

  jufignaerfi. and awarci daiafl 13.04.2033 passed in MXFC
 ~. VN'{:«."2§22$/2808 GT1 ihe ffls Qf The X1 Adfiiiiorzai Judge? I¥'§er:§¥:2€r?
 . _' «j§%rfAC'RV Ccmri caf Sznaii Causes ~32? Bangaiare, paréiy aliowingg



the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement
of compensation.

This Appeai coming on for orders this day. the.---Court
delivered the following: T *

JUDGMENT

Respondent; No.1 is the owner of the Ve1i:is::_Ai’e;.VV

liability of respondent No.2 is not

respondent N01 IS dispensed wn;h_.

2. This is elaimanffs appesi-..V_se.eking’ enhanéernent of
compensation. Tribunal. has ;awéu=:iec:i’*r __e0rnpensat;ion of
Rs.1,54,600/- with interest. VL?nsa’§isfiVet;1@*–\}grith thg same,

Claimant is befgre V.

3. €:iaim.;ab;t néis’.sn*ffe’red fracture of superior pubic ram:

on left siei.¢, ” for “F days. Apart from the said

injury, he heis..suvfferedVAothefinjuries also, Doctor has assessed

10% vuzfisabfiity tel’ ‘ti2eV__;>g§h:3}e bndy, which has been accepted by

1’:he: ‘Trib:.1ns1;«,:”*C1airnant alleges that, he was working as a

Painier’anci«.’}’i.n’k;er. However, his income is taken at Rs.3g0OO,/~

~Vth0u§}’: 1:ne aee;;i:ient is of the year 2008. Considering the east ef

}ft}f’i’§1g._ :ar1d the Circumstances, for a Painier and Tinker in 2008,

.’_&1’_.1jieVineen1e eeuld net have been Eess than Rs.ri1~,€3C1{}/~ per nmrnha

§’§””:Rs,/4E,§G{}f~ is raiser}, eiairnani; is eniiilefi fer Rs.’?’£:”>§8C3S,/~

éewarés Eess <3?' fué;L:;"e ineerne as against Rs5?§€3§€};'~ Le',

additional Rs.19,200/~. Simiiarly, ciaimant is entitled for
additianal Compensation of Rs.5,000/– towards pain and

suffering.

In all? Ciaimani is entitled for Rs.24,2/~

Rs.25,000/– over and above the canxpensatiori”é:ixre:ifde{1.by i%1’e”

Tribunal with interest.