Loading...
Responsive image

Vasu Jathanna vs Bernard G Borges on 17 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Vasu Jathanna vs Bernard G Borges on 17 February, 2010
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao Gowda
E

IN THE H101---I COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANe3A1'..gj.i§:~:'.:' " 

DATED THIS THE 17% DAY OF  T'

PREsENf
THE I~ION'BLE MR. JUST}cE: K.$Rfi:E1);;i.A§ Rm 
THE HONBLE MR. ,.J':u~.sT1CE"A.'k..jy*§N1;Gof5ALA'VQGOWDA

M.F.A. No.-I 

BE3TWEEN_  

VASU qA"rHAN--NA, 3
AGE1)" AI30I.::? 43  1«:.A£<s;'-
S /0. '--..POCVA  " -  .
R/AT BOBBARYAQIIE)1).A'i-{OVUSE.
POST: KATAPA1')Y,'"' _ _ '
UDUPI TAi--.41;K.V  ' = 

 'V _  _  ' APPELLANT
  :{1B1{sR1 A: A.NA.NDA SHfi3TI'Y, ADVOCATE)

"  'B::'RNAIiD A1.L:.
KARWAR.
N.K. DIES'I'RlC'i'.

'f2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY 131)..

BRANCH: RM. JOSHI BUILDING.
LEMINSAGI ROAD.
I~1Uf-31.1.

4%



3. SAN'I'HOSH V..
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
S/ O. VITTAL.
R/O. AMDALLI. KARVVAR.
UTTARA KANNADA.

-_, ffi$$bMmmB
(BYSRJO.MAHESH.ADVOCATEfKflQR2Tx 2 * 2

&ueiR3AREsERvEDy  a'*

1wns IWFA IS rnLED'"ufsg?3(n }3fi fiiv. ACT
zuyuNSrTHELnHxmu§NTANb}QyA§a1xnii)63102003
PASSED IN max: Ndqgv/mifo&?f$E,FHJ: OF THE
LEARNED PRL»cmvugJUDQExfi§ibNjd&JwACt UDUPL
PARTEY A;Ld§fiNQF'?fifi3"x§LAm45 PETHHNV FOR
C0MPENS&fi§& Law} SEEfim¢;JENHANCEMENT (X?

   

'lA"h§s"  on for hearing this day,
SREIE}DI'IA..R BAG, J '.,_ dfifififered the foikowingz

JUDGMENT

_V .Th.c:~.g:§pp_§311a11t./pemTione:r sustained f.ra.ct.ure of right,

~1.’ému1″, f:4_2fzCt:i:;x’éV 01″ mandibie with loss of teeth. in a II10t.{)1′

vt:}i’i<':}€– fc1(:t:.i"der1t..

A’ The oc.cu1″1’€m’:e of Ehe. aczcident, 11eg1ige1’ace of the

A”–§)fi'(«:9i’1ding; vehicle and the coverage of insuramze art: not in

V V ciisput.e. The appea} pertains only for t?l’1ha1’lC?€3H}{i’I11. of

c01np<-::1sati011_

-1
,3

The pei:ii.ioi’ier was working; as a mason and his income

is taken at Rs.300()/~ p.m. by the trial couri ap;)earsl”i,o be

sound and proper. The fracture of femur \V()LilCl~«~I1<fi'C€t.SS'E_ilfllj[

involve some amount. of permanent. disability. 'fOl.é1l body ' r

disability is assessed ai. 10%. Tliehincolnie li)ss:'pro13oriitJnafe

io disability would be Rs.300/-

On reappreciaiion of tbe-_:iae_t.s ai”idl_levidfence, the
petitioner is entitled “iow’ai~’ri_s pain and agony.

Rs. of amenities. Medical
bills – and odd. The petitioner is

2’§r’c1i1_E_€Cl lRs.lV’OO_O’.”‘3Ol/’.6 l”~’Cowai’ds ii’iedi.(:al and .inCidei1i.al

.__Rs.300’/’v—–éineoniel X 12 (morlihsl X 15(multiplier)m

V i’54OQO’,/fiis”ii g1*asni.ed loss of future earnings on account of

ldisal:>ili’1ly’.’xf’fllie {.)Cl,ll.l()i1€.I’ would be laid up for about 6

iiicinths… Rs.l8000/w is 2.»1wai’ded inwards loss of l.i1COEI1f3

:dii’r.ii1g laid up period. in all, the peiiiioner is em.ii’.led to a

compensation of Rs.232000/- as against Rs.l54000/~

awarded by the iribunal. On the enhanced eorxlpensatiori.

the interest payable is at 6% pa from the date of the

petition £111 paynlent. Accordingly. the appeai is allowed L”

the 1.em’1s indicated above.

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