Sri B Rajanna S/O Late Mylarappa vs Shri Vijayakumar on 16 September, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B Rajanna S/O Late Mylarappa vs Shri Vijayakumar on 16 September, 2008

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

te woe f- i. '
te get sa 4 Be te
G oO: 7 ef © oe de a
wd a, ots = § mS ep 4 a
6 F fet mH 6 aio Se
ee . ne tat
ey mm fs ad . &) wry te
st i * fy a ry =
i ti wt as en, 4 ' ey oe Pa
ff . a 2 of ay ty
fo gs a0 rm pb o gS ie i Es 44
tha in an . 8 : rad an ai, ue ™ -rd
et fa da a otk i e oped . wd
te try i} a ye, 8 a 4, ce iG 3
ee ry. 2 Be ry 8 O oh
fe fey wy KS Be # fe oo O
ey 3 Pi 7 aed a re
z " tO ~4e ee *) opera i
me Rk SS hyo , a tg, tS
fi, a fal iA oer i pis 43 ape a
™ mf oO oe & i ie i go Rw
ies a oy aes a af ch ae
» « 4 Db S ci. 4 i 3 Bo &
ho of 8 BoM no ay at " ta a ae
14) - an cy a 2 2, Boat
be gd 2 -- "s ; aes) ee a ie co eo & roy 2
ke eR tee ha as aH a Poo BS
mtd ar , ome, ey 4 o on WE a
BOE mo j ae e i Segoe
° * - feu ee wie m 4 rf a
ti Bq . a sf gS # oe Boe
1 ted oe oo OF RD TS pear
vO we 44 ts ey bes re Te md
m Ee ime) es ee oe Pa Th ng 43g DB
fe i Go Ge a = i nF ms
woo Hoes oa 8 | ee SG
as is Bed ae ON a 7
ee Ps a BOG et ee oy
eG i HS od AP Sp me _ iy
m : fee eG a. ta a
ae oe BE ef Ra i ae
" "eae. d wat ge
a is ee cso? ere = oe 7
a ae me eoagh Pees é 5
"oi : ped ne hy & il won ay a bog bg a. 4
gimmm celuea dat Sa. a
" a a

&

"

3 HOIH WIVIYVNYV JO
ANOS HOIH WIVIVNA
WH AO RA |
LUNOD HSIN WIVIVNAW JO LUNOD HOIH WIVLVNEY) JO nino HOI
ADIH, WIVLVNYWI dO LHNOD
HOM


cee a .
Se ae oe 24g G m a 3 &» » % G 4k i i i
QW oo hay a Hof o-oo ba = a Mm 4 c moO a
ed OEE ae : a mw ma 4 a a Fe a at ee eae ng fal C3 ar S
eg ark 4 Bob 7 FF . & 8 f A
QR B oo Bod So og nm oa a op & & & Bom
ae ad ri Sp & fa Hog % nm oo oo gos
g A om ip 4d ati mh on : 3
fing hog re : . ay B dd ty yt os] Re
ae n : ae) ie fed ee wt he fai fs ® * F *y
ane rs er a? ra : i
e oo . 4 'So os 4 rn re ™
2 Gog Bo B " E » + » # 2 @ 5
mn ms ins _ OO a a = aon ee eS cy
me "rt oe Se ee 6 3 BP et OM og 2 :
og sal Pen) @ fs 44 te a g ron oe -- ii
ad aye mu ; ee a ad fe ey 4a --y ner ms #] é a 4 "i
vi ia Wi web on yt oO " Soe a od mi Oe feng fcr on
52 - rn a, nn: tf oo ot Ow Ok
ol i 4d ' 7 we So, ul mm ¥,
a. oo Me 8 0 wed ' a i G ie en '
ts & RB a oe ne es < @ Fa
ra i Be i oa ay ot We ge : he on i pd z pod me c y
a ao cz oA i? Pal a <r w é I 4 re "ed hed
ee 4 pod "h wd _ "i ei . le. rod ° fe a ra hd bai m
ra a - a MS es "4 o3 8 Gy a
| MI %) % bet, cd a i we, ert s 4 Aa ® i Mag Hy al
Fa ay" oh ri . 3 aos wl a pa A 4 ti a a
a Es * # ib . 7) ae mek hg "8 =
a . i 4 ting * ' ao Lg Ero & et
" a a no aye a ey ae Hed ie wa anf = * vr 4d
CS Sg ae ee = a ~ 8 |
Go mn 3 - bss ® wi re ee: ie 4d res ope g ey ef
vl BR age Be ec ee ee o f «£8
rd Teg fe, Ee a oes 2 a athe & ai eS
rel ey * | Se 8 ain gy A ae TT oa aa
73 i ig re] Fea hg ran td me i a he 0 'i a
a ys i a £4 ' cf 8 . ae ~ 4g be tt
re #4 rd rel tsi dt * 'a a a o i S| ES fe a Pe aa zn
ot i " et . ' ord . to = " -
mo, i te t i on = ed oS a & o 3 a 4 ou
a = 5 ii ye ge a & bad aon rf a
a - © G si . | i Pet "a had res rd 3 ce
a i ib qe i : er a re ee in ©
fe z ut fy : e = i a ed "ee a a > : Bs it rf
a GB ope BF f Gt 2 Ba
o Be ei . ee 2 ne gS : é S
a a te 7 oy ort G Ae aa is cL fa) : na oy a a
fy ds. fe a '4 i S a a & r ie 8 - 8 if . a "4 he *y "ey
mM go Ld = ii ie as 7 a o a a e i fs a . o a

*

IHSIH VAVLIVNYVY JO LINOD HOIH WIVLYNAY) dO LYNOD HOIH WIVLYNYY ZO 1HNOD HOI WIVIYNNUS 40 DINO HOI wYETYeRDR AO DINAN? HoH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C ang nourkehment and Fe.39,146/- towards loss af

2. The learned counsel for the appellant 3 22% whole-body Gigsability and there is also.

shortening oF Leg, which © has "resulted in reduction in the earning sapacity. Therefore, the Tribunal should have rayen inta consideration the re lose of aaruing capacity. Ha ales submitted chat the actual salary during the Laid Wp period is. ne baken inte geacount. Further, submitted that under the head of pain anc vats ETE ctw vote EEA "3, srilRajendra prasad, learned Seniar gee gpearing for the respondent submitted thet bhe. Tribunal has Found that the injury has 6 'ant cesulted in amr loss of earning capacity.

Consicering the nature of the injuries and the euployment, the Tribunal has rightly net granted 'thea compensation under the head of loss af future is SX Gh .. ye. og a Ps on el en Smee © a a , a ¢ » 1 By ft aa. BO RB a ou os 5 Ff 7 8 6 oc & @ a 8 &B va oe ; : ba i & -! sat a 3 4y 5 ee, os i a 'a 4a iy a a aw a oe 4 "8 & ; c ran 3 '4 ay rd pa . ey tp +e : wok . haf 7 a? = et gS aa aa fon in gong AM oo fea AD oged ° Bey tH ' om t Boe] i. a aed Ls, G. ba ered i | = u2 a 4 4 o oe . i" to 3 * jail { 1 a fet Ba oH OR edocs ad od a i a a3 a is ees a el r gy lCUB UE + tO " oh { - * i iB a et a ee 4 oa rat # a oe " nt tn i had ad a ci he ey a a Fy ro Fe CoB og BOS BT Re a a ao eo we ay rr oe a +3 '; Oy ig rt Og - ff f hy t "ef 4g "4 6a ey a a. kg ; : s & ly fs nd * :

" u & ' . + : eq ey qi rt Fi * Wed oda te

4 a an) a : . on " et Ch te + pf bi Pan me it red anf ed nt fs a # . a BO gy ep Tm a th ET pe 44 a ee ee ee ¢ Bo il 'a y abs 44 Pa 4h 2 go 9 i om & oe Go onde & a af - i de em... 0 eo Ty a r fs on a a] i] iF a ' te 2 e 3 ares OS at a Q : 2 rd ny a a ; & ie od af a as fe + rer ig i ey i ® 4 ' m my. ks Reo Bd 8a Q 3 4 4! = fui uy Sg kk . a ey he a i m4 hd be Se e ko at er s $s 7 rn | ra ve ' go at - i oe & " a Be = Ok «og -

a8 3 Mop oy 9 OR eB ee go Nom og OM a 6 oo og ow & Oo ae = F ed : a 4 mB eich gb HD ; eS @ a # Ff Boon & vy ul a cs og 13 ee So » © 7 u mn 2 OM mB Ss Wg. "4 8 oo Mm fy oy FY e eg oe re ae uo i a re) « oe ae oa & BS i aes bed sud Fak , eFy 7 ae aged BS : - gel co a tad i o nm ret Xs mG aaa " ne y ae fr o i = eho yt # Be ed 4h a: a > Ba aS 3 ard Os iu a * oe aS ity ht 3 $ d bray } ood 7 ha . i ee : i a * ie i . " om my P Heo i ns "

tm i a C "" 5 4 bs x Me = + PS a oh a 3 ey e <p ha ny nS a ae ¥ i Re Baa Boo Ge :

vd ai ey el Es = pod me r wa * i c ae ae ey nt fn om Ch Ld . ~ " bad mi ope % "a Fi ee . vy . 5 M 3 rt 1 ae ~ "ey a : Ss iS rth . LEE age 3 iw EB tu aS Sa "rd oh ry G Fe tu hs me ie Se wy wal 4 ra ¢ Sef i eth mi ec pe = * La a en or ' 8 ta a i i co 4d Mm i i " i - us Bs oS By sy r is : ; ad m ood ca rd id 4x ted i 2 2 HOH WIVIVNAY woe JO LUNOD HOIH WIVIWNYY JO LINOD HOIH WIVIVNAYY JO LINOD HOI WIVIVNeWe dO OD HOI wWIYNY® dO DING? HOE 4IGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUKI UT KAKNAIARA mon u:

earning capacity on account of any AMS LUSSs o seduction in bis salary nor there 12 any evidence --

seeancea af evidence, the rribunel has rightly . Found that the claimant is net 'entitled te any amgargation under the eaid head. cangidering the entice evidence, I am of 'the gpinien that the nc ig entitled to 1s. 62,795/--, | which is vaundad off te RS. 63,000%- "over. and above the camengatior avarded ~ by 'fha. Tribunal with Sd/q Judgé ® aib/- a

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court