High Court Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Mallanagowda B Gubbi on 25 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Mallanagowda B Gubbi on 25 August, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna
,1.

IN me: max com? 0? KARNATAKA AT BAHGAIA"._'>RE_:. _ ~V. 

mmn TI-I13 mm 25% my 016' meusf,  1 ii  ?;%= C r ~  --

Tm Hormm mwmma        

THE Hozmm r«ms¢z:;srI<;r;«.éi";ar.rmGA1v;:r;$ms§

 

'a 906 m-1:2 Q1

'ms mm mum AS${JE€fi.NC'E_ CGj14;T'D§  L  %
1970.654, 137 FLOOR,   
KOIAR DISTRICT. %      %  
BY ITS DMs1ona.1.oF:Fn::E  

473 FLOOR, TOWER 

"UNITY  J.C.H'0AI3, V

  ..... 

BNISIC)E5LVéM&~FI”R$:§ER.._ …A1=I=ELLm.~rr

(E36312: P. B; Amimcamy

Q % ” ” :AGC’5WfiA 13 GUBBI

..,WmmWW Wm WM: W mmmm-mm Wm agimwzw W %.&%%§%’ifi{%Em mam mxam’ W ggmggw fiamgg

T am SRLEBQNEJAPPA G-UBBI

A » % AGED ABOUT 23 was

N .~ \V.hI W’ ..W..

%T%g;mm.s22, 1cm mm

‘=%3m srmz, «rm Bmcx.

BASAVE SHWARANAGAR
BA.§GL.AC)RE«-«S60 CW9

uwvwwamm }?ma”6}I :mv”vmw.wV!s1«*”mv;s£*WMs\.¢I”%r. N:ti§i”Q.£H°£3? ‘m~’5axo9’w*3’%.4X \w?’$ #”M'”lM'<%.17'%-<'-'\:'\

wxcvflrwflmalumw

amuwsgg mmww mwwmfi wk!" mmmwmammm W'§'%:9§""$§ m;Jam?% WE" §?i$&%$&€¥*£%a$'%»§_fi$a.§'%fi'3x ;=:»-.m:m mam

2. SR1 c MADHUKAR

MANAGING PARTNER

rmumsrmxman mmons
m.1371,m12*r STREET
VIJAYAPYJRA, DEVANAHALLI .’!’AI.J_JK = A
BANGALORE RURAL Dxsmxczfr-562 «$.35 = Y A

(SR1 K smuvasn, wvmamk NRRE spcnnmanw Ho; 1 %

SR1 (}.V.DAYARAI*II)A, mvcszghm FOR,
RESZFONDENT no.2)

Tim under Section
1′?’3{1)of m.*, and award dated
zayams rqw::.’k§:m;r3d~39;’04 on the me af the
at Causes, Matzropolitan
Am, a. eempansatiaoxx of

Rs,5,65,22(:>;%- at 5% gm. fmm tha date. 01′ ~

pefit%r;;:1 an Maser dams.

coming an for Orders this dag

3iv;::acx;;;1am:4néA .1, warm the fa11owing:–~

% gait
‘firm apml E fileei by the Imurarm Campany

. j:;[mlEerg:r1g’ the jud@n1: anti award passed in MVC

N.6099f200’i~ dafim 20.05.2006 by £2143 MAC’? at

£2

UV?’ W. Ww..mWm WW” W mmmmm mmmé a;.,mWz- W mwmflm magm cmwm W :§%€T..»,%’a§%#’a§%’aJW§%(fiaa mm mm

f_ wgaaiinpezzaaflon an various heads. 52;

.3-

Bangalore an the quwtion of quartum ef

2. For the sales of ”

refitted irate:-mcf mm atati,sa ‘i;~#.¢f2reAtI1{c¢.

3. we relevant saw on 23.5.2004
at about on tlm
Icfl; 81:16 at’ No.KA-02.

Vatal Eagaraj Road,
‘mm iniahpaondent Nay? arfi beat-fig
in a rash and negligent

fififibeii. “” agazm ‘ ‘ 1: him. As a rank of the said

griesmus injurzm and 12: was swam

ta Hama at Rajajirxagar. Comemiing

ht;-L; sufiww t disability an awcazmt of

–aac=:1den. ‘ ta}; injurm’ , 23 rim the exam’ wizitian seev1m1g’

J’

.4.

4. Afim scnrisae cf nntice from the

mspon&ent.s appearfi aid aonxesfifi

support of Isis claim, the claimant. .dep<2$é§i ' . »

the ev1de' rm cf Dr.G.GopaJa1u'm;"' 'h1:%§a:*~ %

marked Exs.P1 to P16 and Vfegfifpgtfléizfig

evidmwe, except {$5 irxaazraizxoe
maxim! as Ex.R1. 'baaihflaf an recard,
the Tribunal ams.s,5s,22o;- with

intex-wt at eat' the pctition fill

deposit. """ "C and award, the

this appeal.

3 learned cmxmei fer the appellant

It is aubmmd that an behalf at’

i the irmtaxfi £3.53, the damn’ had

bites: was aka cm. 1i. Piawzmrmg the

Wh% amcling eampmmfinx: Em ammd a

‘ :1fRs,2,€}5,020!- on the hfiddhas effixturs aanakzg

wwtwmv mm aswwueemwwwmwwm Mezwvm mevwwsxxx _,\w’ze :w*usmwm%m«MwmW’m Hawks: mmtwzmvs wens xwwwnwawsmsww aawwwa wwvwmvc wan axwmwmmwwflwmww. ¥”Hawm wwwwmfi. W?” s”%.:iv§’5l?€iés’:%,e{*’*€a§é%«<;mP«'i ?"'§E§?£.:~'*F'"?é MW-MM

wacity Wfmhia cmtrary ts tiweafxdmm 3:: wt}. fie
/2
/'

*-'*W 'WWWfiW_.wf'm mwmwwwwwfimmm wrawam mwwlm WE" mmflwmwmm Mfiflififi %W@N§' KW' %Mfla*~%&"E"fi%£€.fl.

.5.

further submim that ‘U313: award ntyadc an the athezr
am aha mmaiwm and t11m%r6, this is a fit

interfm-arzceizxthisagl.

6. Having heard the harm foi”


and on pamzaal ofthe materialgn    that»

 Urflwtlle   %   

olaiimnt had susta'1mci    and
diahca5mn of    nf medial
tibial eendyhe   injury fmm
upper 3"'   laceration af

sartoxiaxs. with daap lam-am
wtmxzd crmtaminatian. As per
is exm:n1I1ed’ 83 W; Whiz in
the alamant has smmixmfi 50%

hwver lam 311$ 40% disabflity he an

A I ‘ wag praduem to oerroborate the
k was ex. ancmresm. afim maxim that he
aurgmyand tmmwm ‘nnplanm in ma kzfi

oompensabmz as fcfinswat //%,,.

1. Pm’x1and$ufi’aring : Rs.

2. Less of ;

3. Maxim eatpenaea and izxeiclentai : 12sL¢[2,5€3,€;ooT;; &

4. Less ofincpomr. durixg ttw.tn3¢3if;t; f: ‘–.Rs .”*-40;2Q0gV5A

5. Loss of future 3 L’

: Rs_:$,55,22o/-

suntakwd to! 00118-id&f’&fi¢33 the
young bi’ that he was a MBA
Gradu,atf;§’.ai1§i.s.a Juznzm Sales 0% at

Meflifa ‘V and prior to that at mm as

— as plant with ma:-d ta gelling of the

can amunt af t disability had

‘flow tlm saié mnmm. we find that the Tribunal

A in awwdixg compematian on head caf has of

k% earning aapaeity by mm mm whela body dimbmty
V at 15%. We aka fifi. that the award af mmwtssatisn an

§ovu’%J9$m§’km§ 3&3″ W?’1zX””4iaW”é.?§V’~€r?”{§§$2″”}xK’7.o%'”h €§'”%W%?J7€5fi= ‘€¢.,w’€'”4’v»»l’W¢FE WK L¥”$¢W°”‘%.KVM1%¢$'”‘6’t-T$3*'”‘fiif’6:.#’VA §’f%fi’%w?i’§¥t ‘%w’fia:rP%u8’i!’¥\$ ‘~’1m;’?¥ -%”‘6.:é””9.x£.”Mt’?1b>’*”‘$’&&”*’}’«i$”%,\s?””‘iA -$”‘1?U”L£$¥”fi \\w’%fi%9.lM

the other haafis are aka mt uzxrwnable, as as ta: ca}! far

5..

§
g
Q
a;

x
§
3

mwwwzwtwmm vemw

‘*””””W*”””‘°”‘””‘”””‘°”‘”‘” “”W””” ‘%*WWW?AA%M1fiW%mWM%Mmm Wmvw mdmm U?” mxwmimm mam flflfimf OF KfifiNAYM(& HIGH Cflififl? Q5 KA%RM&’¥&5-=-*%Ti:¥5’-l?%

pg-

an mmtfcrmzm in this appeal. In fact;

cnmpenaafimn awaréuw by the 4′

Rs.5,50,22£} but mmumm 53$»~~Ra§5,§f2S’;2’fii:j’;,~f:;’

d2fiere’ me amntmt: has to be ” 938-

an tin hum of Loss sf

mmpensatzion an the said fl]’awerV§sfie. For
the afarwaid reasena *’£:”I4-91¢?
Than ii.*1 T’1i§ei'<::src this Ceurt tn he

tmmitfiéé'

Sd/*
HEDGE

Sd/-

FUDGE