High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Maruthi vs Smt Jayashree Chaatra on 25 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Maruthi vs Smt Jayashree Chaatra on 25 August, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
BQTHEHK§iCOURTOFKARNATAAATEANGALGRE

Dated: 'This the 35"' day 0f AI.1gL1st: 22009
BEFORE

=1'm: Hc';>N'BLE MR.JUST}C:E v.JAGANNAmm§é

M.P'.A.No.'?'95 / 2003 MC? 

m3TmE-F":

SR} MARU'I'HI

S/O HALAVALLI V 

EXGEIZ) ABOUT 3:2 YE;aRS,"~V..V , V . 

R;AT KOTESHWARA PQST AND Gi'€*AM1%,':

KUND:'sPUR'A TALUK, '  "A --_

15023131 [}ISTR£Cfi'.'~~.__ 1- , V 
 ~    "   APPELLANT

(By S::"PAv.§;1%»%',é €fi;§;{,*xN'1:$.i%A"s§!%:'B*:Y:'":? 1%, ADV.)
AND :

.1. _ sM*:"';;A¥As:-.n«:'r3_2::"-.%:AATRA
; "'t'sij€,} s E3-E;D§~iANAi\¥ rm CHAATRA
 D;L¥RVGAM8A.._§21QTORS,
, 1'-'M; 1?, KUNDAPGRA,
  L;13U{;:>.I ":3.¥_bTI2Ic'}*.

1:2.'-% 'i*H?::Ij{;>I%:i€NTAL §NS{§RAN{fiE Cf}, };fI'D.$
 I3i'~'a»'fiS}iONAL OFFICE,

12132:? FLGSR,

VVfi§flfl}PRAKASH'BUfiKHNG,
*  COURT ROAD, UEUPI.

f REP;BYITSEHVE§QNALffifiNAQER.
HSRESPGNDENTS

'T   {By Szti C. sHAN:«:AI2A REBDY, ADV, FOR R2)



'l'HiE§ MFA r«*:LE:;> U/S 30(1) 01:' W.C.. ACT AGAf( NS'I'

"mg JUDGMEENT DATED 26.11.2007' Pagggiéiis'--- j':L:~;-..
WCA:CiR~31/NF/200:6 ma THE FILE 0;: THE.
(TJFFICER AND CEJMMISSKJNER FOR'...,.§s3Q:e:§MEre "
(Z1OMPENSA'l'1{)N. UDUPI xjxisrlzéiéififfi«z;t;2;19;_ _"§?51;ff;"i;'§% 
A1,:,c;>wING 1';--ir.: CLAIM PE']'£TiC)N*.FC3R ~'c(>z~;1z:f'=;~:941:s;§r;*¥_j<3r_.4'-.

Am) SEEKING {CNHANCEMENT op ':;Qr£s:pENsA'i:j:QVN. ::

THIS APPEAL (:i!:m;i~J:',:,»'£3Vz:~.;I'V%_jIr*'(ifi3"E?z_.A1j§21Iss1(}i~3 THIS
BAY. THES comm' 13;?,L':2%i::1?zE;.3:§ f3§5¥;ff§."¥5(}iQ§.,0WING:

Haaifi  the parties finally on
the :iIV1<:'?.'i't;:':. awarded to the
    by the ciainmrxt himself

in this  1'i1;?§;i:2l;§? on this mourzd that tha

  L".'):§fi:n}i$si§1'1er in takizlg 816 1033 of <:a.mi:'1g

 V {:%;3§pa_Civ?gfi'%é1t~Vf5'i;§9./'s. but in View of 1:136 medicai evidence

.t:;;U,éBcVcir gfipgliant referred ta the medica} fiVid€1"1Cfi on recerd.

 C323 thfi ather hand, ieariled COi1I"i$6i far

 the i'6Sp(}I3€i€"3Z1t Insurance: Q:m1pa1":}s' argued that the





c:0rrespc3m:1:ing percentage: merxffiened in the nzegli-{:31

evidence cf the Design' in respect of the " 

concamed. Since there is I}(} finding rée.r;)rd§dL' as!

regards £033 of taarnirxg capacity aiiti   

the Commissiorxer as wail. as tin: 'matexiaé . :evi°c1c:*1<iéA

also cioes not reveal as .:what   of
carrying Capacity    the
}Lf)0Ct0:' aiso Hut.   that ht: has
assessed thsf;   regard to
the less    mentiorled in
$ct;e(:ii: l'é I-- _v   fu;'t3;'}er in the ruling
refezfiéd  ='C0i_lI'lSE21 for the respondent

thg !_&V1:2«€:XL4’i.*Zr}_1:Lj;’%;, fifiving stated that Wham there

‘ , wasi’ 13::;V. Eiasis f(;fi*:*éc01’diI1g 3. finding that thare was

E?) }’?>ExV::’iQSsVVV{:f §;~:aIz1i:1g capacity, such an {)r{i::*;r 5f the

Eiigh f’,i’;4:,§;_1vL’::’3′?;A§;::o2.1id net be up held, ;{ am of 1:116: View

that Z v.V_i”;£1is mattsr reqtflres remand Ea ‘(ha

Q’ C:-a1)5:znissi0:16r so as to assess thé 1835 of fiaming

u ..<frapaci'f€5: on the basis of t}1<"–: medical evidance keeping

if} View Expianation Ii ta Sesztian -4 cf the W.C.Ae': arid

fu:'the:1' the aviéierice Inns: alga 1% there to 111113 mu]:

V/$3?/'

3 .1'

the p0ssibi.13'.t§:' of 0131111311: b<=;:i3:1g not abie iii) do any

{)[h€I' work as well 3.33131": from being that of a driver.

For '($16, ajbxesaid reasans, the appe;3i»._4"'i§

disposed of with a direciian tie the {30mn1isS"i01-1§:r.: 1;1t»__.V _

reassess the kiss of earning Capacity A0"; u

thtfi above observations and pziss t11;({:fiv0t*ri_f:’ a

Cay Cxf this <31'der. V V
Both the ~ before tha
{§;an11:1issi0n¢r on 29.9; " " V

back to the Cemmissiener
f011;E1w"it,fi; ._ . %% . V
Sd/-

JUDGE

Ebvr: .. ”