New India Assurance Company Ltd vs M Raghu S/O Mahadevappa on 9 February, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

New India Assurance Company Ltd vs M Raghu S/O Mahadevappa on 9 February, 2009

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN

DATED THIS THE O3"'DAY OF FEBRUAR§"2G=®: "::.  

BEFORE;  

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAN:3 BYRAi§E}LDI3Yf' %

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP§EAL Né..1689Q_Fi€O'GS' (MV) k A %

BETWEEN:

New India Assurance
C0mpanjy'Lim§ted=« V V _   _ AV
Represented       
Senior Divisi.o;1a1_4 Mzfmagct L V'

J.C.R0ad,Ba}1g;§§;_re            APPELLANT
(By   1%§§1i'f§§a€e} 

AND :

 1. :v;;Rag11u, Maggi 

 .....

' No. 41 5: Cross 'BT§ﬁ)§:§:,% $73 I ATf Nagar '- ABa:1;gal0:'£:j--3}2;= V ' . V2. Majar .A SEQ Liaté Rudrappa V Ni3~;.98. I Cress ' ._ VS'u1i1ashwara Ternpie V. Street, Market Road 3 Rs.45,0Q0.:"- and towards pain and suffering at Rs.35,000E--. The insurer seeks to question the same as being excessive.

3. In proceeding to award Rs.1,36,000;'- A future earning capacity the tribunal has taken, ~-.,ace.io"i:nt i following :

That as on the date of the ajp;e'ilant's the tribunal, he had still not recoyerecit'fronij'.i_njuries"ins'f5ite of the long lapse of time, from the date that he is no longer able to iiri1l§<~:Vproper'l}i;'«norstand or sit on the floor without suifering pninLiianditl1..ait"he iirssileiiiﬁennanently disabled to the extent _of 45%;iiineAthe lower: and 15% to the whole-body. The V_app:el!a;Vnt._b'e.i%ng construction engineer, which involves field work, "this inépaiiinéent would eertaioly affect his efficiency and é 'eapacity to work. He is employed in a private concern and is not ns's11Vrei:i*Aof any pension.

4

4. Keeping these aspects in view, and in order to eompeztsate the appellant for the permanent disability that he Suffers, which directly affects his efficiency and capacity to work, the tribunal has adogted 10% as the whole-body purposes of computation of compensation. And oatof has deducted Rs.l0,000.f--~ towards liitCMOi1?6- iélrasvtalcien ii Rs.8C?,OOO,r"- as the annual income, (a has arrived at the amount of comfjetisation. feasotziaiig of the V tribunal nor the amoants aiicioptedi staiafto beiarbitrary at not justiﬁedzg givei3'ti';_e tlslévts :tr1d_cireu-mstances. There is no warrant for interfei'eniCe. The':.iapi_:$eaili"3tands dismissed. The amount in V deposit' isto to the Tribttnal for the beaetit of the cIaima11t'.i . ii Sd/-Q Tudgié ~ .. " tit?

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court