Juoéiasm It is stated that, respondent No.1 owner remains €X~§)a}"tf:
before that Tzibunal, noficfi to mspandent N9. 1 dispensed with.
2′. This is the -::ia;imant’s appeal for cnha3:1c€me13J; ‘
compensation for the injury suflemd in 3 mad accidenfg..{i:1:§’ ti} .¢,,
the rash and negligent ériving of a motor = ‘
No.KA.’2.{)/J. 1492 driven by its rider. csajmamaugggd gs.
entitled for Rs.3,00,00(}/ — by way of ccmpéiiséfifiii fdi9’t}%i&~
The Tzébunal on tbs issue of rash
that, it was due to thy: a motor bike
bearialg :~§o.11 ;1r the appellant submits that,
Dr. Mfirripathi Bhat who is werlzing as
and he was eariier working in
He has. stated that, he examined thy:
‘aI_;ci Vvizas issued Ex.P9~ cerfificate. He siated that.
hag sufiered head injury and he is 21:31: in a position to
V immediamly and requires at~ieas-it two minutes is
and reply. His memezy is reduced and has also cannot
cancentraie and assessed the disability at 100%, hewever. in the
,~§»cV~’
-3-
cresswcxaminafion, 11?: stated that, any neatment will not
improve the c1ai33:za:1t’s cenditioza. He admits that, he has not
eaxamined his physical smmgth ané fitness and further states
that, he has 1031; the hzagring also and furthflr mated that h:_
do other jabs. Tribunal considerixzg the evidence fougiti’ _»__ A’
though d{)C’fOI’ has ‘stated that, 1:115 claimant 3
reductzien in the memory :{}{)W’fi’I’ and also ];éa:ii:_g,’1 It19§=é?<:3:e:;4,V ' A'
doctor has admitted that the claimant is stil} can xvork–'V.az.'i;'i étarijx V
on some jab and declined to grant the 'éc§1:iipensafig n' £136
future loss of income,
4. Learned has stated 169%
disabifitgg in i$”<:£;ncerned. Admittediy,
the claimant accustomed to take any
other wcark. He u'1"u;'t_':1e¥ that, the Tribunal without
<:<1v-:L4:v:~=.idv.cz1'n1_.;;'~;§;.?;¢__iAE:vj5def¥é€*' §f__Dractor and Without considering the
doc:2.gnc1§ta1y e$.7i:§ei*:¢.f§éhas granted meager compensation.
5..’Sfi’VRaj¢fi€1ia.T:;Pzasad, learned same’ 1′ counsel appearmg’
Insfixaxgcg Company submitted that, doctor has stated
still work. Doctor has not stated that the
‘A lost his memoxy, but there is reduction of memory.
v .i,A1:A cit3V»Vé:2§mI’iTot mean that, the clmmant cannot work, he submitted
there is no ezlisability in the earning capacity of the
7. Though there is no clear evidence as regard to the
loss of fixture income, the disability is pointed out by the doctznj,
the injury will have an impact on his earning capacilggij ,,
cannot be assessed in terms of the pexcentage of disal:»¢i:lityV.’- ”
cf the opinion that, globally Rs.50,000[–
loss of future income or the disability.
{ha claimant is entitled for l?s.1.S6,(}(l}l};i;’
the date of petition till the datejaf VL T l I
Accordingly, this appeal _
T; ll [llllllludge