– 1 ..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE
IDATED THIS THE 3″‘ DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008
BEFORE
THE H€)N’I-BLIEZ MR.JUS’I’ICE SUB}-IASI-I B.AI)I
M.F.A.NO.6030[ Q02 IMVQ}
BETWEEN
I THAMAIAH S/O CHIKKE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT GOLLARAHATH, KOUR I-IOBLI,
MAGADI TQ., BANGALORE RURAL DISTJ ._ ”
(BY M/S. LAWYERS NET, ADV.}__
AND V
3 DIVESIONALMANAGER ..
UNITED INDIA ms 00 Iizfn ‘ ‘
No.1 1 14/63, E.-ND jiabooa, TZHAKUR’ C_:{3MPL»EX,
S.C.ROAD,YESHWAN’TH?I}.R; V V .
BANGALORE-5630922 » ‘
2 SOMESHEKAR v
AGE AND FATHER’S NAME I..~z0*1′ KNOWN
1~z.8::~3, PRAMQDVNEVAS, {,:’N.c0;.oNY,
wry. _:cRoss, YE$WAl’~¥’I’HPUR’,
‘ ‘ _ BANGALORE-560 022—-*
Q …RESPONDEN’I’S
(BY: s:§1:«.13 5 EA;a1§§:i§1s~HNA, AQV. FOR 12:;
THIS MFA FILED U/S 273(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT Ai’-53.) AWARD DATED: 2s.;o.2w6 PASSED IN MVC NO.
*«.- fi1?67′-,(2004 0:41-mm FILE 09* THE VII Anm. JUDGE, COURT 0:»
_ ._sMALLA .mmoN– ma compmsanon AND srmxzm Emxaucmmsm OP’
‘ .’j–QOBKPENSATION.
” THIS APPEAL COMING ON FGR ADhé;{S8§ON THIS DAY, TI-{E
C0~UR’I’ DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: –
V _.§’.v-Ar>:”{*E’LLAN’r
_g_
fl
This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation in respect of the judgment and awanzl in MVC
130.626?/2004 ciated 26.10.2006 on the file of MACT, Bangalore.
2. 011 18.7.2004. appellant was crossing NR4
‘U’ mm of Teasaxahalxi. At that time. a
No.KA’O4 H.186} came in a rash and negligent ‘
by its rider and dashed against the 34,, -:3′ e _
which. he sustained fiactunes to ieghenee’ left ” ” ‘
3. Claimant alleged that, he and
earning Rs.4,.’50(}/- per i_EIe–_ ._that, he spent
more than expenses. Based on the
wound :f;’O’l..I}1£i that. the claimant has
sustained eomfiuted icft side tibia and fibuia. In
euznpert has examined two doctors as
have assessed the disability at 40% to
vtyhe mend the whok: body. The Tribunal though
“‘._’censiie1e§§ of compensation in respect of medical
‘ ‘ sufi’en’ngs and on other heads. hewever. did
the loss of future income. instead, it had granted
‘ VT . V _ 2 – towards loss ef luxuxy.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant suhmim that. the
claimant was eamfim more that: 123.4-,50a(}I– as a weaver and
with 6% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of
pcfifion till payment.
Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed.