High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri U Venkatanageshulu S/O … vs Nagendra S/O Ramachandrasa Hebib on 19 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri U Venkatanageshulu S/O … vs Nagendra S/O Ramachandrasa Hebib on 19 November, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao& Gowda


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA;-fig jf f

CIRCUIT BENCH AT v

DATED THIS THE 19 TH DAY ;’OF:;N’GTVEMB3§R.: V”V2″(_3!) f§;1v.j
BEi*c);:zE X L % % A

I-ION’ BLE MR. gmsT1c$i%’K.sREEbm%R 5&0
HON’ BLE MR. JUs*r;cEL%Bki.s,REE1fajVAsE GOWDA

N”i15%é34%%0F2006&%<Mv)
BE'I'WEEN=T " ' L "


SR1 UVVENKA'TAN'2iGESULU  
S/O    M %
C/O Y K RAMUDU"~     ' 
AGED ABOUT 30  '

occ   SURVEY E1s:GIr;E33R

H mi) 3/155  ~ .%

 '   zkr H SALESW" *
 .AT..&.TA£;U.K'ANANDPUR

%%Ar§nH121aP}2Ap*asH swmar

MALAVALLI)
APPELLANT

NAGENDRA s/0 RAMACHANDRASA 1431313

AGE MAJOR OCC BUSINESS

H NO 10386] 1, ANCHATAGERI ON!
HUBLI

DHARWAD DISTRICI’

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL iNSUR’ANCE CO.LTI).,
SUJATHA COMPLEX

P B ROAD, HUBLI i
Resxéennelxrzfs

(By Sri.VIGNESHWARA s. SHASTRY AND RAJASJ§iFi£AgR

3. ARAN1)

MFA FILED U/S 173(1) 01? AGA1NsT’:i*iTHE ii A

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED if?) 2006 _PASSE}3<.IN

MVC No.1 11/2003 ON THETVFILE O}f'ADDL,1Z3I\i'II; Jeeiee _

(SR.DN.) & MACE',

This MFA comin_g Qii" foxf iVVV'Pa.(1misié;io11'*"'this day,
KSREEDHAR RAD, J.;iiu1eii1e1iowmg:

"

‘I’he'”‘ sustained fracture of
cerjrigele ;bOI1e”‘ in a motor vehicle accident. The

‘oeeui4I’ei1ce”‘ pf aeeident, neg11g’ ence and existence of

is not in dispute. The petitioner was

dipiicmai 7–i;;’j1vVCivil Engneering working in private
cofiétruetioii company and getting a salary of 123.7 ,065/ –

The salary certificate is issued subseqeunt to
iiate of accident. Therefore the ‘I’ribuna1 has taken the

_ ificome of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/— per month which
” msippears to be sound and proper. The petitioner is aged

about 30 years. The doctor has assesseci the disability at
40%. The Tribunal has considered the total disability at

10%. Keeping in View the fact that the cefitiele’

W131 have unpredictable future conseqt1en(:es_’ £1;

proper to assess the total per3;:jsii*1er;:r.é_ 1′. A’

20%. Income loss proporu’onat’e.V

Rs. 1,000 /- per month. Or1″Vreazsses’sm’ez1t A ejividenxee tiie”

petitioner is entitled to eom§eI_§;satien” 36,000/– for
pain and agony, incidental
exmnses, Rs.1,6O,{)O(}”/44 _s_§br inceme on the
accmmt of “»’iewards loss of
amenitites are of disability.
Rs. 10,000 lless’ treatment period. In
all Rs.:vi.>”,55;i):C:Zf{3_f/;:7;};94L’s %Rs.’82,s2e/– awarded by the
‘- Intezfesjsat _ {:9/6″ awarded on the enhanced
cernpensatien frem”~t’;i1eV’date of petition till payment.

, ‘}E?3ntire to the petitioner without any

V “proi?isi5:i_ f(}I* ‘deposit.

Sd/-

Iudge

Sfifw
Iufiqfi