High Court Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Manju Nayaka @ Manjunath on 17 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri Manju Nayaka @ Manjunath on 17 March, 2008
Author: K.Ramanna


l

in “ms HIG-H mum on xannxmcn AT

DATED THIS THE” 17%: DAY OF f

BEFORE

THE HUMBLE MR.Jus’£f;cE. é T– T ?

M:s.£J.>”c}q:.s$2.;)»:-.’Rc)A::)»
BANGALOKE-.56ia.o2’r– » ‘

REP 32 ITS .; V A AFPELLANT

(BY SR! Puxsuyéagsu,’ my
A %%%%%

LA 1:.’ ‘ §&;ami1~.NAYAxA@MANauNATH

T. s,{0».xALA..NAYAK
A ‘*2s”YRs._R/0 BERAKANAHALLI VILLACrE
VATEF. .3012. POT, PALYA HOBLJ
mama TALUK
.. HASSAN DISTRICT

fésxuuaa

S/O M.’i’.SOMEGOWDA
MAJOR, R/0 M.H.FURA VILLAGE
SING-EHGON.I)ANAHALI..i POST
AALURU TALUK
HASSAN DISFRICP. RESPONBENFS

I

“””” ”””””” W

THIS APPEAL is FILED UNDER sscmon 30(1) 0? we AC1′
AGAINST THE suoaumur & 0299.12 DATED 10–4-2007958830
m WCA/NF/SR.NO.’78/05 or: THE ms 0;? THEN maoua
OFFICER 85 commxsszonm FOR womausu COMPENSATEQN,

HASSAN SUB–DIVISION, HASSAN AWARDING A CO’iuEJ¥?!$}f§!i§_!13;T}_0N

OF RS.96,87’6/- WITH INTERES’I’@ 12% RA.

THIS APPEAL comma on: FOR AD:e:is3zé}s”.’i*i§1s.VuAi'{‘;”.

THE COURT DELIVERED THE F’OLL’g)WING:’_

JUnGM§gf

me agpcnmt beans’ ia:_1}§;c

come up with this and
award passed by _ for Worlrmc-.n’s

Comia;:n:;a£j:;§5n”u’.ii:-.i ‘E~Ef:$;~.:}}a’€fi/’NF/SR.NO.78/05 darted 10-4-
” 2 otmtcndcd that appc%t hm issued

‘V cover the risk of 6 labo- uncrs plus 1 dnver” ,

claim petitions cams: to be filcd and

alrcady satisfied five awards.
a The rcspondcnt–1 is the Ioadcr. He sustained’

in the motor vthiclc accident and the appclhnt has

A Enot disputed the relationship (if cmpbycr md employee and

the injuries ausiained by mspondcnt-1 timing the cxmrsc of

– 4

employment. According to: rcspotidcnt-I ,

gricvous injurics in the motor which ivv’.*ia.<_x

dmwm' g an income of Rs.4,ooo;';}i:r«ia¢;niii or 7 V

R350] «-.

4. The wound ccrtili .. . ‘

fiacturc of nasal of nasal
rm.-., am: at a lie developed
synus getting the iota}

disability __.-Of ‘I’akm- the nature of

work of the i’x1:spotiirVlv¢ii1¥”$:’l has rightly
taken the th; Rs.3,000/- per month
aZ£ll4’:1_ haS Jgiisabifity. Therefore, I do not
order gacd by thc ‘ ‘ car

V V

‘ ° L 5. A ‘€.1’cg£|1′(. ‘ i,={:;:ic liability rasicmd on the appellant is

‘ H thfi appellant is the insurer of the

which met with an accident and under

the risk of the insurer-appellant is mined to 6

V. ” and one dnvc’ r and in whole, ugh’ t claim’ petitions

in

cf ” ” “-

_

came to he saw and um appellant hm

awaxd passed in respect of ‘

award in respect of one __

without any gnuzlds 33¢ its liability
to satisfy the award pefition- As
such, them méga Co2nmms1o1:’ ‘ :1’
in fixing satisijr the award.
Hcncg;,_ at the stage of
* ‘