Loading...

Sri S Prabhakar S/O Sanjeevaiah vs M/S Africa Air Conditioning on 9 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri S Prabhakar S/O Sanjeevaiah vs M/S Africa Air Conditioning on 9 March, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TKARNATAKA AT BANGALORE' 

Dated: This the 931 day of March QOOFAI' " 

BEFORE

'I'HE'_¥~iON'BLE MRJUSTICE    

M.F.A.NO. 603?/;_2o°o6_       

BETWEEN:

SR] 8 PRABHAKAR... S] Q,.5A1$z;:E'E:i!AIA1é'  
AGED ABOUT31--.YE--'AR--S  ~ V 
NO 49, 3&1) CROSS," ' '

ASHOKPURA, YEswANA*:'H:§uI'éA.' '  ;V ._ 
BANGAIgQ.1§'E..,_ '    -~

  'I-7.'.';vAE-'9I3ELLANT

(By Sri KT GL¥j§§':Ji5E*JA"'1'3: INDIA INSURANCE co LTD

A J}  R RAJAGOPALAN, ABV, ma R2)

V I II FLGQR, INDIAN MUTUAL BUILDiN(}
 N-.,R. "SQUARE, BANGALORE

~BYj_ITS DIVISIGNAL MANAGER

  RESPONDENTS

MFA FILED UIS 173(1) C313′ MV ACT AGAIQNST THE

‘”gIUDGMENT AND AWARD DA’I’ED:i9.i1.2U()5 PASSED

IN MVC NO.3837/2005 ON THE FILE GP’ THE IV
ADDL.JU{)Ca’rE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,

MACI’, MEETROPOLITIAN AREA, BANGALORE
{SCC3H.NO.6), PARTLY ALLOWING THE €LAIM PETITIQN

FOR COMPSJNSATION AND SEEKiNG E;~xi~1A:~aoE_Nn%ij1~s%:”‘–,_

OF’ COMPENSATiON.

‘THIS APPEAL COMING OP{~iF’O–R. :~«rr;:A1§éi1?ii’¥i’+ ‘§’fi.tS «
my, THE coum DELIVERED THE FC;)’_LL~OWENG i’

JUQGMEEEA

Compensation Vat§ija1’d§:ii”‘ ‘ ‘f:1a2t’ii’1i1{a¢1i1t~-iszy the
tribunal is called in mainly
on the award any
amount gaming Caflacify
despite “”” Viiiolicating 50% limb
oxicl sought under the head

of loss of earning durirzg the

” V’ . “”” ” ‘V

counsel Sri. K.’i’.Cxu3:’I_1éev Prasad

for-4._the§v’ refezming to the medical evidence

opxbnoittod that the appeliant sustained a fracture of

& femur and fracture of right ankle joint and

-*’-iias undezwent two operations and medical evidence

has put the disability at 50% for the limb, and 55%

}/

…/

3
for the whole body and therefore the appellant is

entitled to loss of future earning capacity as he ie a

Coolie engaged in loading and unioading. Under.

head of pain and sufi’erir1g, the amount

lower side so also under the head. of 30;-:e”t)i’

during the treattmemz period.

4. Leagmed __
81′}. R. Rajagopalan; for “-eoiepany
argued that the ;_ioetor is on
the higher V’ 1′:he fracture
sustained 1:1-*;ez’efore the court
may g;o:ésieé;¢. having regard to
these 4′ V ‘.

5. “§-3’1 View. of._tI1’e” above submission made and

V’ .,ha’£?4i;1g2,._*-gene the evidence on record and

by the appelianj: not being

(Z}4i£§§$¥.1te(fy. of the View that the whole body

can be taken as 55% regard to the

V.”V’.oee1:ipation of the appellant and therefore taking the

.,,_%e<::ome at Rs.3,()Of%/~» per month and applying the

no

mtxltipiiar 16 towards 103:; (}f future earning

amount to which the appellant will be _

Rs.86,400,l-. To this, Rs.10,00o/;% will §1av~e ijjf:;r: '*.:§e'–AV _

added towards pain and
towards loss of eanmg du1~i§1g.:;V1e {:~es¢men: J
Therefore, the Z by
Rs. i,{)4,50{)/-_ The at

60/6 p.&

by allowing the

Tudge

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