High Court Karnataka High Court

T Narayanappa S/O Thotlappa vs Papaiah S/O Not Known on 9 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
T Narayanappa S/O Thotlappa vs Papaiah S/O Not Known on 9 June, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy


3 mrma s;éH.e*r;%m::rwm

mg

‘4*wy3:~2: 9 mnm mm m:

” I€£1!’I’ICE m 24. nmmsw mm}

0? ICARNATAKA HIGH court? or KARI§&A¥A:z~*%41;2§1§

BIEFOM

‘ma azaxam ma.


rag. .A..2:g.9;3§_ 1 my    
 E§:    O   

   ~ 

£.fA’§H§A!l;’£1?:fi5’€?€33..G§E33 ‘i.3_’i’.i¥i.£3CK .
mmm:<.:a1?._ se=#.E.;1:1z-%:§f;;31§;vs;nin:a3;.I"'

3 Yxafiamxamk Sit} V' "

Armmnm’

Byfiaé ; 1:

2 ” ‘. ‘

_ gym A. ….. ..

V ‘=5EflI£35l££3K!JW’DADER&EA£I.I
E59511;

_
mung
12m£}ALmmnm1mc’r.

” figs sno M 3
= _ » mfmmn mgamxcg ca.

1/%i7Cr.9,r1, mason mm

Efififihwfifififi 042.. .. %T8

fififi FEED 3f3 l’i3[}.) C-‘F EV AC’? AGAIHS’I’ IKE
.§fi”£:€§§iI%”l’ 5% A’fif:§Rl} IIATEI3: £3.2.30€|6 P533313 N EVE
KG» 4-§25_,f%G4 SH THE F33 {EFF ‘WE VB} AHBL JUDGE,
Cfiflfi E}? SKALL camm, , l£A!C’I’~–V,

@

I Dtnfifi I-l”III-I \’f\I\’fI\’IRI)I\’I’\.I J!’ Illl”If’\”\ Ll£\ILl ‘I-ul’\.iIuJII..l’ILkuL.nI Ilfi 3 Ann: .5 gun’.-U-. .

OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARl\fA’¥A!(A HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COI

af Rmaam;-, wmoh sa ahanmea an the gr-r:und_ ,
ms ms :1-mwhat the EPPE%.nt is wfifim .1; H ii»

3. The ecmnad. fiat the _

am the Tribumrl has i 9;

Ra.1a3mg- – the
awlanx hm sufigiagi left
ézarsaxm aim lateral
mm: was on aatzacoum of
whim he pe:r’1oLi am the
Tribunai Ra.10,{)D0i- towards

lower aids and therefiwre,

sum. mania lass ca-f ammum ‘ at
the same Imlzirm ‘tn he enhancai.
X as mm: bills are mnmmd, tmugh the
have amt more than Rs.50,DD(.’3f=-,
‘§’1ribuJ:1a1 km matramed the amount to at
ms.mm:y- ezndhza so far as am mwaréa future loss

@fmmam$ ,tm?fihmfihmr§pawtm

5

‘E VXVLVNBVX :30 LEIGOZ) |-l’.-‘)1!-I VSEVLVNHVX -In I)-In(“3”) 1-Inn-I \-nlulummnnl .In nlnnfi unlu H\lHlH’l\l)l\-fll .:r1″1’):’E’g:i;s aggfiniix ..|n Hanna I.

I or mmmam men coum or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or I0-\RNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cc

claim a;11d has restricted the awarci
?nr;.nme ta tum months at Ra.6,DQQf-. 1
wxnufi. aizbmit that tha dfmabilitgf

fiisabflity, the app-el]ant__w*® kiss of

-::apa:::1y’ have been

mmpemated to do and
th:r%r’e of

‘°”‘

4. Em: the rmpnndent No.2

jwflllfi has prwecded to fasten
aid seam-ally on the respnndents.
insum has not filed any

% it um fizum arm the amourt of
thmgh an the higher side, did mt

challmge mm mm that the imuzmé
ma umponcywaum gamma the limfiof

§ahi1i%ywhc?hco:x1&m:saabew,&®ado11itunc1m’t1:xe
‘%forI%i3 C%fim Act ma tk appellant ms

3

Lane: HOIH V)l’d.LVN2lV)l so .Lano:> HDIH vxwvnavx go .zano 🙂 ea’-23!}-4 wvnmxw 4n ixnrn u

L V)!V.lVNBV)i £0 .lBflOD HSIH VXVLVNHVX :10

or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH count or KARNATAKA HIGH col

claémng as workmm ofthe fxmurssd. In this
matter, the t if any, even. the _
am1t.it% tr: thca mm wauld have
swim am: that egg izJa:e.11m””a» xsawgty

mam ifiia pmmjse in he

scape for «H2
mada éa thmefarg wan
_§2:3§.% in cf dkahflity
czaimm bf: fractxnwe to the
cause dimbility tn

am whoa: jg crf 117%, me Tribunal was

the medical evidance as it

ms media} pracfitianm who hm not

in the amt “mstaxwe and the

— ‘as? 4p of éiaabélity was apparently

and mac:-atad. Em Tfikrunal has rightly

Vt the same for puxpasm of conzpiztatian of any

” mwarcis comenmticaa Llnder the hwad future has
fif mm capaezfiy. The *rmum1 has awarded

subaaaantial amwztarim under aha: mxicsus hmds and that

8

_.-.-«.-m..=__–:-_as3 of muki he E

‘I VXVLVNHVH :10 IMHO?) I-lflilwi VSIHIVNSIUSR ..I(“n nmrn unna H\IH’&\ri’l\I3iH\I ..In I3ll”ll’\”\ unuu wuwuwmuwu .1:-s .- ‘s’I!”n-“3I:”‘\ I.’4’2’\[I_§’V”\:14:”a.i\-lFAi<:l';|\IV-l\l Jl"\ nann-'1 e

ms the appellantwotfld sufiar the
to on m of 17% to the whole body, as

"or KARNATAKA mo:-1 COURT or KARJSEATAKA men COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH cc

3 doses ma warrant aay m t by thh

ah absexme of aupporthg 3

fiaflim.


5;. 65 mm    
R?a.13;C3W§-    the
knew aifie, in     the same
MW  MW!-
En so   oonoerned, given

that appellant, would be mass
as an In so far as award

of ,=::f wpacitgf is concerned, the

in irgumee to the appellant while it

out byahewx-mum], izztha face of the
this the fiacmre atxfibzred to the
fitawml ham, assessed at

1?%émno!.ir1wiceoocr1ficiameaetoiheax:ctzmx:3-‘of

6

1 vxvsvmnm so mnoa Hem vxvxvmvx so umoo HSIH vxvsvnxvx so mnoa Ham vxvsvmvx so. 5 . _ «
:.uno:> HSJIH wvxvuxvx so nmoa +

.. DCCNM O1 _Smz>:£n> 2.0: flCCfl._.

om x>m2>«>x> 1.6.3 00¢»… 01 x>wz>..>x> 1.0+. nOC_~._. on .n>_~Z>._.>_A> 50$ OOC_~.m 01 x>xzB.>_9 _

Sd/-h
Judge

andtmmxzm ainac the imumr is not; in
§.&mmfim@,&m;g@&Qd§flwm%gm@®ffi# _
ahaamnmgumgfigmagqgmggfimmnk
at’ Rsm.3-so;- with um%a;m of the

UU $6.3 $_$.<zu5_ v.0 MMDOU 19.1 <u_<._.¢Z¢<v. ".0 .5500 $0.1 <v.<h<Z¢<v. ".0 #2300 $0.1 §<.–<zx$_ 3 HMDOU 19.: §<..<zx.§ ".0 ._