Loading...
Responsive image

The Manager National Insurance Co … vs Satyappa Lagamappa Basaragi on 18 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Manager National Insurance Co … vs Satyappa Lagamappa Basaragi on 18 November, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
IN "ms HIGH couwr or    ~
CIRCUIT mzxcn   u
DATED vars Tl-IE mm 9312 qF r:¢vE1na§Eji,[i"2p?e,g'
THE xiorrnzs MIi.JI_;i_u:8"'1V"_!:_(":£v_lfn  '-SCCVi{i'Ii'g_

enhancement of compensation.
(In MJ-'.A.!Io.896l2003!
Between:

The Manager, V   A 
National Insurance Co;«,_ ,Lt_(i.',._ ;  .v "

Division--f'J_, Maker Bhaiéaiz,  * 5
New  ' I,ii1éé-:g:_RD -.CI1:_1'1bhge::tHc.,5
Through Ma1iager',':.'Ma111tJ1i Galli,
Belgaum', i10W  ifiépxesgfltcfi'  its
Region-ai lv!anager,. fl_  " «. 

N afional' 'i11sV1J.rai1£;eV  A.'  ,
Regiqnai Ofl&;ce,V Subiiamim Compicx,
# VL44, Rloagi,

 *  _ Bafigalnrcfiéfl  " ...APPELLAN'l'

    8.Arani, Adv)

1. ~ Balappa Lagamappa Pujeri,
T "Now aged about 40 years,

Occ: Business,

R] 0 01d Vantarauri,
'§'a1uk:Hukkeri,

Dist: Bclgaum.

2. Prakashchand Maturani Shanna,
Ageflviajor,
R10 193, Galflian. Sector No.19,
Plot No.28, Nam},

jfii/W



Navi Mumbi. 

(By Srtsanjay sxatagm, Atlv £q:.,m an§fl""2j~ :     ' 

This appeal is filed u/s V1.fz3.;(:;3of..MiiL'%A¢£fags;:;gst 

judgment and award dated O9.1f)_.2fl{)2_~  pas.-aeedx.' "--~in'~.VVMVC
30.2134/2001 011 thfl  Addl.  vH I].k_keri, 
allcswing the claim petition for'--t;<j:u1;3ensati.o11.T   

flgC3ross.._ _  912;oe3'%g;g;3a.4g,_u§;g9éigoo3:

Sateen:
Balappa Lagamappa I;'t1§cri_;,= % ~

Agerd about 39    ' %'   

     '

R/o Gk:  '  

Talulrfiéiukkiari,    

E}ist:.Be]ga1i?u:§,_--.    _ --  caoss GBJECTOR.

(By Adv)

 A 1,.  a/,'i*Ta€'Iso1anag' éi1[ 

-» _V , Naiijgitial Insurance Co., Ltd.,
V - _ "L?§ivis:;i<31i_'eVI, Maker Bhavani,
 marine Lines RD Churchgate,
  Manager, Marathi Galii,
 "- BeIg"aum, Karnataka.

 " 2.   'P.mkashcha1ad Maturam Shanna,

Age:Ma§or,

Rio 103, {Ea-iiiian Sector No.19,

Plot No.33, Net:-11,

Ravi Mumbi, Mahaxafihna. ...RE8?0HDEH'I'8

This Crab. is filed at/0 41 R 22 of CPC against the judment

and award dated 9. £0,200? passtd in MVC 190.2134] 2001 on 1315
file of the Civil Judge ($3293.) and Add}. MAUI', Hukketri, partly

,_ /
my
\



 

allowing the claim petifien for coaaapensatioif'  
enhancement of compensation.   L. 3 T 

These appeals and cross objeefigns  i:

this day, Ksreedhar Rae. J., delivered the  '

 A
1. The two appeals  Lhe objections arise out
of the common   Hence, all the

macs are taken  paesmg  exders.

99 

 

  .

T Court ordeit’

2. The epegmcr is agicultuxist and doing other petty

. A’vb11s_'”m§es§v.__.iA’ The has assessed the income at the rate of

.__1n the absence ofcredihle pmof, the assessment

proper and cioes not call for interference. The

-V pefiétaeeik. sufl”cIed amputation above the knee. The ‘I’r1″bunaI

the permanent disabflity at 80% which is also

.’ and pmper and does not call for interference. The

T ‘ peizitioner is aged about 40 years oki. The Tribune} has taken 16

U multiplier which is on the higher side. The multiplier M would

. @903 corrected ide
dt.14.o9.2009

” is for; V

be appiicable. The loss of income proportionate

would he Rs.1,920/- (24ooxso%).

3. 011 re-assessment of the 6Vi(iCI:1;-L’.:’€,
to Rs.50,000/– for pain and ag«5_I1’3.’..__RSQSOTEBOO/~’VFeo:i§’owI1iVsToss
amenities and discomfort, ivvfor artificial
leg and its replacement fiixiee towards
medical and incklental towards Boss of
income during RTs.s,o2;35c/« (1920 (income) x
12 (months) ioss of future income on
account oeiiooner is entitled to a just
compensafioo «of The compensation whatever

awarded’ is Therefore, no reduction or

correcte vide

at ; mum; 0: er

dt.l4.09.2009

4. T is aged about 40 years and he has sufiexed

é of The doctor has assessed disability at 50°/o.

sfiormnmg of left lower limb by 2.5 ems. 50°/:3 of

R assessed does not appear to be total permanent

T ” Therefore, the total permanent disability has to be

Tnsssessed at 20°/o. The income of the deceased as against 40%

disability assessed by the Tribunal would come to Rs.2,4OG/-

t3011}1?.. L’

of the disaicgility, Rs.20,000/ – toiiéatfgls 1 incidental
expenses, Rs.10,000/- tovgaxfis _i;:i¢ome laid up
period and R>s.3o,64o/- jgeutioner in 31: is
entiflcd to a !.,,.7;%),640/- as against
Rs.2,6=7,120/– V
: L % 5. Acc<$i:Adi1;glyV, 2003 and Cross Objections
cor 2003 is l§4.§:f§,A. §fo.4896/2003 and Cross Objecfions
wide court. 9 " ' '-

Order éé)2003_;féie}*dismiésed. .
dt.l4.09.20G9:/Va_ ,_< ,_ . '"'* """

5.» g;:a§u:::A.n:v.acposi: to be transferred to the: Tribunal for

V V ..___ . ,disbt1.i’:.=%§§ii1ent.. ‘ ‘ – ‘

Sd/-

Iudgé

A. E
‘ ” Jmj –

E 61; BSGJ:

14.09.2009
0 R D 1: R on
MFA 397/2003 A/W MFA.CROB N0.98/2053.

c/w MFA N0.896/2003 A/W MFA.CRO899 /’2f(;)Q’3,.

Office has posted these cases for correetings-0i1i’e”‘e V’

typographical mistakes.

Ordered accordingly. V

Office to carry out the”~e0’rreeti0’nsV.

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