The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Yarappa on 30 October, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Yarappa on 30 October, 2008

Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 

DATED THIS THE sow I;)A.¥~o_§f  & ' 

THE HOBPBLE MR. JUS3f§L:E BA;SEiEEAMV}%SE"G:OWDA'
M.F.A---..§\Io. 232i1ﬂ0fV'2Q08 (1w.Ir;t;7

BETWEEN:
The New Ix_1d:%a_ A.sst;ran.¢§§ a9;=~L;-21.,'  A
Divisisnal 1  '  % 
No.40 1...%a.xmi%.C:::np1exj-LA? V . _ .
Opp Vi39i$..HG$}7iW»»"  
Forft'Baz1ga'£i10:re;"?2"' %  
By r;i_ut§; coiI§:titLit€;d'vAft<31ney.

I . .    .. ,..APPELLA,I'~i'1'

(By Sr{K,V%%E:%113V:;_';ra.rV.i2.x.1492'a§f"s'§11a Rat}, Adv.)

   %%%%% 

 Si/Q Tiﬁinmarayappa
Ageiiﬂbout 48 years,
* «IR/at Nidathata Village,
" V Sanmehalﬁ Post Maiur Tq.
 K01ar Dist.

  KS. Munavar,

Major ix} age,

No.28] 3, Fuiamanpet,
J .1521. Road Cross,
Bangalara.

3. £':z.Madhusudh:--311,
S/0 M. Ganesh,





I'->4

Prop. Sri Guru Sweets,
No.18}2, 22" Main Road,
4 13* Cmss, Jayanagaz',

931 Block, Bangalore.

_.~..--- »£§$§s?{§§riiDEtN':;S " w > 
{BySri Prakash M.}i.Adv.for Cf]F3~~1)  'T A  

THES MFA FILED ugs 173:'-{1}OF Ex{V;9;.(f'i;AG;§;i?siS'F Tz~:E"...i:;:§;i';:»»zE;r~rr .' '

AND AWARD DATED 1?.12.2G06g?ASSEB"--IAN MVC NQ;--%.4a74 120% ON 'FHE
FiLE 0? THE MEMBER, MACTW1 ABEL. .,',=~-xzmilsz, BANQA:;3RE, s<:a:;z-6,
AWARDING C£)MPENSATIC3I'~E 0? Rs.1,5',6;3,ooo ;'------ iwr'i*.§+I_ EEN'FE;REST @ 6% RA.
FROM THE DATE 0? PETTIOBE TELL P§;YI=.§ENT._ EXCLUSING FUTURE
MEE)IC$~.L EXPENSES <::F,.§2s.:25,00::;  "  

THIS APPEAL cdmim 7r)N{,':e%:3i%-- ;é;£>ié.v::.ss:oN, THEE. DAY, THE
COUR'T,{.':EL1VEREi3 TI:-IE FGMOWENG:  '-  

aw __""1§&§f 

 Briaf   "are as follows:
'I'?f:a_j.iA  while the respondent was Walking

itjfft $'iii\€:. Qf_fo=etpath frem Banamakanahalii towards ' between Eaﬁamakanahaﬂi and Ganganagar " re§'st1'atiG1':1 NO.KA-O1-M-7733 came in" a:u§fa.$411 and negligent manrmr and violently dashed " Qaiigainst him as a msult he Sustained gievous irguries to 131$ ieft kg and other parts of the body. Hf: appmached thus MACT Sfttiliiﬂg cempensation of Rs.i2,00,0{}0/- and tha MAC'? awarded compensation of Rs.5,63,000/- with interest @ 6% 13.8..

2. As there is no dispute regarding the bodily' iizjuries sustained by the appellant in a meter r<*:j:'si.r:i:.f"L'.s;:ajt':{:i(i¢¢:}:1't occurrsd on 9.6.2006 and the. liability Gf anly issue required to be cansidélwztd 1:n.éiii;a_wf1efhér ﬁrs compensatienttz awarded by 'A i or calis for reduction.

3. After hearing ' far the parties, mruvsin-g. of the 'I'1'ih-umal I am of the :"€)piIii€in.: V' ﬁtizmpcnsation awarded by the is" jiigst prosper and it does not cal} for Itﬁaii---iiieugll the appﬁliant has challenged the V "pompensation awarded by tht: Tribunai an 'i he confined his argnmcnizs regarding mmgiﬁiiasaﬁon awarded tewards loss of futnra earning. 3 'VT1§.;3rcfore I have ta (3{}I1S-idﬁl' whether the compensation of Rs.4,32,2OG/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss {if f1itL1I'€ income is just and prspcr or 1101:'?

4. Respondentwclaimant has sustained. V ~ . _g*:ievous injuries ta his left leg and he was tI't3ate(_i.-- S.N.R. Hespital, Knlar and hj$"»V1¢ft amputated. He was an agiﬁultxjriﬁt "

years. He contended tha1i:_uf1e:.. wa;5;"d;:)ing personaﬂy .

:3. Ex. P 7 ta Show his land h<)1§?xi3f1§$'; -- :?fV:2 W110 treated this:

app<§IEa.i1£., iij;s_"«:-3:4-§:z3i;:1'L§3.nati9I1 of the appellant he has found th"e--vr¢11exsz~ing;

A. th;§i"1'i:ft'V kllfiﬁﬁ joint, large keloid ovum' mﬁdical v -, '*--side curved 32 K 4 c:ms., painful at knee joint he says mare is 70% disability;

.{i3'}_ " he is not able to do his agicultmt Work til} V day, ha is not on artiﬁciai leg, even if artiﬁcial leg is fixed then also he will not be abie to do his agicultmal work.

V. 70% {if diaabiiity to his left lower limb and with regard to agiclﬂttlral work and ﬁjncﬁonai aspects his prermanent disability would be of 100%. According to the opinion of The amount in (icposit stands '£116 Tribunal. .

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court