Loading...

Sri S Balasubramaniyam vs Smt Anaya Jaswal on 5 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S Balasubramaniyam vs Smt Anaya Jaswal on 5 March, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan


Area, Bangalore (SCCHQO), partly allowing t11e_..(;lajm
petition for compensation and seeking enhanoptzriitam-._Vof

conzpensabion.

This appea} coming on fo_r…h.,ea:r1__’ ‘ V

court delivered the foliowing :

J U D NT V

The afipeflant. ” 1) ‘ motor
accident leading to loss of
the left ear by him was
allowed awarding a sum of
called in Question by
him Inoroly on that under the head loss of

futufxe income’, ‘ the “amount given is on the lower side

. ‘V.t1:*§’Lc}; an error in taking the

Whole body at 4% when the medical

evit’ieI2oe’ fo the efiect that there is 31.6% of loss of

“of the left ear. Compensation was aioo sought

‘ €i:’1dor the head of loss of earning during the treatment

as wail as loss of amenities of life.

‘2. Learnod counsel Shri Gopalakxishna for the

apincliant, referring to the above mounds, contended

ls:

that the ‘I’ri¥3u1″1a1 committed an error in not nofieing the

medical evidence with regard to the pe1*eentage–ei’..ef

hearing of the left ear and there was

tak:ing it at 4% for the whole .

to the Ineeme Tax Returne filed

the submission made is thE£’5£.._fif1(3 iI1eez:I1e–ef

fell down after the ae<:1',§1eI;t«éizV:<.;lyV,_:,' ;fiVie;fefo1;e;"'d1eV§TIibunai
ought to have awarded lost by the
claimant VV

3. On eet.1nse1ShI’i Srishaila
for contended that
the eseessed the percentage of

disability ‘the A”wVfie1e body and moreover, the

V. – ieéengegedirx cargo transpori: business and, ae

enefl; 15:; hearing loss has not caused reduction

in –the _i11eeme and moreover, excepting the Income Tax

no other documents are produced by the

befexe the Tribuxaal to Show as ta how the

.»v.i:§1}uI*ies sustained by him had led to the ices of income

frem his business.

i?

J

4. Having heard both sides as above and after

carefuliy going through the material can

taking into account the nature of the

appellant, it is unlikely that the_11fi:a;ri.ng–‘iés’s.:::t§§:§§:4sione§i”‘ ” ‘V

to the left; car will lead to any

of the appellant from

Moreover, the leariizcgci c01.;n$£:f1LV._fG3:LA thé ” also
submitted that exce1V3f;”i{);” the accident, in
subsequent y€afi=?~.._ in the income
from the ‘

5. I am of the View
that tghfi increased undar the head

of ioss of ‘ z23;jt1«:r1f1Vi:i:f:§A¢;i”]:iu§Ee by awaréing a further sum of

éIid…..towards less of income during the

‘ 3 further sum of Rs.10,00{)/- can be

‘jfixfidcr the head of pain and sufiering, a

furt’m°*.1; o:fRs.10,0{}O/~ needs 1:0 be g’az1ted.

H Thus, the ccmwrzsation gets exlhanced by

‘ §§:s.50,000/- and the. interest, which is payable: on the

enhanced amount, will be at 6%. On the amount gven

%

by the Tflbuna}, the interest shali be finm the ( 1__ate of
{I36 ciaim petitian. The impugmd award is

modified by allowing the ailikéaj in Part thus? ‘

aka/’ %x % ‘ “*%%

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information