The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Sri S B Ravi on 24 July, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 1CfiR!iIE.'}"Al0k AT BAIVBAIBRE

IIFLTEI! '3'!-{IS 1'33 24th DAY' SF JULY 2903
BEFGRE

THE Human MR.-I£13TICE mm amansnnv 

flBsuullann¢u: lirut

   

1.no.s1}w _
2::  

 

nianllannous First g§!51;Eq.$1§9.§ S ¢u5 _ 

EETWEEJ:

The wiw'India Assurance
Campany'bimited, Hc.1,
Shacnkar House, 2'" Flavor ,
Makhxi circle, Banqa;¢ro=g

nagrasantad by Diuisi¢n§1V,»"i}_"p_,
Ufricewvill. fla.4T,,II;f;oc:=.*§a

Gopal :omp1ax,«B§xaar st$3atz v

Yaswanthpur, 3anga1¢r$+22zA _ r_ .;

By its fiuly c¢nstituteG~$$ta:hfiY.\ ...APFILL&I!

(By sri,£.R.R§Vi§hafikdr, §dvucatA}

AME       """ 

3{a.Basa$3raja;vP;_ ,
fifatashivanapura,fiaaanapura,

fiangalare Hdrth[T&lhk m FIRST IIIPOIDIIW 1!
_ _   ~.  mm.Io.s1aa}o5

1. 3. 5.  Ti ':51. :1  

A*_'1.3ra5a§na'§ar:aszd,
_x._V23_yaa:s,3fo;8avandappa,

"«-3fa:_$hivanagu:a,Daaanapuza,

V._3anga1a:ifHarth Tzluk

rmtrr amromuw II
was . lo . 5199106



2.Abijith Ehajaraj, Majar
sf¢.Hnt knawn to aypellant
R.-fat: lEi<:.94, 9" cross

F... M . 'tr. Extension ,

Bangalnnau1y large amaunte being granted,

V£higfiA"iSeet§t&lly' incensietent 'with the settled

greeedehta in so far as the award cf damages

t"%e"t0wardBe pain and suffering is concerned. The
'"t'ifijfi&ies are not of such a eerieue nature, which

R"»;mwfirranted grant of such amnnnte. Absence of any

medical evidence nught to have raeultad in

3

notwithstanding, the 'ahsefiéetter Eafiyj";



dismiasal at the claim: petitions, for want» at
evidence. Hbwever, the Tribunal having gxgptad

such huge amounts of compensation notwithatafiding

tha ahsance or evidanae has regfiififiéfjfinifi

miscarriaga of justice and th§gg£¢:ag"t$§ 駧aa1$u" E

be allaad.

4. Par cantra, Vtha : c@§#sei  far "Dfh§<_

raspandants wnuld submitwfihgt iflL_ifil%nf§ftflfi3tfl'V'

that the cl3imants  hnua~ fiat» adfificad.5Eadica1
evidence, in the evéfifi-§h§figfifiéfi §ad, they would
hava beaa 4ga§it;&d"~3§§".fll%;§§§5 Jamnunta uf
compensatiefigéiifi i§k%fi§ fipfififiéiénce that there
was di££i@&ity_§ig._§&§§¢i#§  ovidanca thraugh a
madicai'upr§¢t;£fi§fi§:¥Qthét the respondents hava

not Ar:tme:{” ‘eh’axie:i.§}a the awards. It is intact

n.Wthg &1aimagts §fifi hrs aqqriavad by the awards in

V9 ;e§3e:f§fi§un§$nbaing granted.

=J§.’Tfln: so far as the aontentian that

exéfhitgntfamaunts hava been awarded toards pain
Land suffering and lass at amanitios is cancarnad.
t ‘i£”*is nat a tenable contantion as it is the

” =wdfiscxetian cf the Tribunal ta address the claims

3

no injustice caused ovunthough the Tribunal may

havn awarded .fairly’ large amounts towards _pain

and suffering and loss or amnnitioa.

7. Accordingly, the appeals are difiui§§§&;Lfi
E. The amount in deposit to by negitiad tof_’a

the Tribunal for the benefit éf the ¢iaifi§fit¢%afl~ H