✦ High Court of India · 26 Aug 2011

I td v. Aggrieved by the judgiient iii

Case Details High Court of India · 26 Aug 2011
Court
High Court of India
Decided
26 Aug 2011
Bench
Not available
Length
1,736 words

Aggrieved by the judgiient iii ‘1 p sd r xc present •s: cal is filed.

3. 1 bait hind dat learaid Co’.i’. °1 fn ti part e ilit suS tantial qaestiora ci 1w 1 a’ es ci crsclcrtlon’r h\pped r Jhis icrin as ‘—; situ n ii) i PKi ,al_ . “ntht.t. atr’t t’r c frori 0dav forth 1T - I’) h ‘a — It rj’rtti I. i( . lit t 1 tt )i t (3 — I.- •. 4 - i t f t B S i a t i a a a 0 a i a t i a t f r 4 h a ; i c a < c a o s . . . . a i i a 0 a a D ( r E 0 ‘ t f . s i a i c a i e a a a r E o 4t ) l C r E a r E t i A a B 0 r i a a o a 0 i c a a 0 t f . 0 t g ) 0 a a a a t r a n i a • 0 a t f ) 1 a i i . i c i i c a a i c t a f a f O a a t f a a a t f r E a O C t i c . a I . r E o a s i 0 . a B a . s i a t i s i a a a 1 0 t f i i a a a i c a s c i c n i a a a 0 0 0 a t i a E ? a : t f a P s i . i c n — t 0 s i o s a a . — r E a . a . i . — ‘ a a s i a c r c t f r E t f i c a a i c 5 a a . i c B t f — a . s i a s i 5 i ‘ a s i 4 i 0 2 I 5 ( . 5 1 r E — 5 ( t i a a o s a t f t i a Q a [ i . i c 0 0 _ a r E a t f a * a a ‘ t i E . • t f 0 s i < a t f r a a s i t f r E . a s i a a t f a a t i a a t z f a ) 0 i i E a a a t i a t f a i j a t i t ; f a s i a s i a a . - P i i s i . s i a a a . i c L C t a f a a a t f ) 0 a a r E t S t S o s a 0 a s i i i l E 0 a a t f 0 a a s a a t f t a s p o s i E a s i 5 ( t i a , 2 a t i a < . . - a a a 5 0 a 0 a ) I a r E i c t f a a a - s i a — ) 0 a t i n i a . s L r E ) I . a t f s i a ; a — t f t f a a 0 r E a . s i t f o s i ) N . a . . t f t i a a n i ) 0 a a a 5 C a t f 0 . ) i a t f r E s i t i a : a . a a . s t f t f r E 0 r E a i c o t i a a a o s a 5 1 •. — . ‘ , ii; I out X-ray 01 the injured claimant. in fdct, in I .1k case the wound certificate disclose fracture of iowa end 01 tibi i. The coctor lied pincd beforc. ti claimant had suffered permanent disability to the vtcnt of 45°.. Based on the same the Commission r has (onni.sc i r • assessed the ia’s’ of c irning capacity it 0’ . tin . t ht. X ray taken by the orthopedic surgeon a t. t’IMS Bviary, confirms that there is fracture suffered by th hlCxnaut

9. ‘the doctor examined before tin ‘o i kss us had assessed the permanent dis4blHt% at 43 .ts a t ‘p. the doctor has depost d before the CGsa’Jai&a’i.rjI G’0 Ut canaat va.- c. rji’riri • i • i e “mm’ t’on hc :ovna wastinr of isbt ½u ‘ % • tz and3rn cver rioht tibia listil turf IL La £ .t j lagof2)dana LI ira rcsf t ç’iful. Iz )

1. -t r ii L I t’ir S Et. L.i iut i io, £ atbL ic’,CsIC tttta itt it t’u’tci t’ ‘it Or £ uhrnr.1thc,i.rr id sic • .tarc oft— c ‘1 ‘ 1 i t I )) ‘I’ - • ‘ a a m c a — — . p ’ C a o a g r t — a a a a a a a I a a 0 a a I a r f a a 5 a t a 1 a a a 0 , _ a a • — a m c a i a 0 — t - ) a a a 7 a r r z a a ‘ ‘ B m c n a t ‘ a ’ 5 a s — r — a 0 a , . . . a D , a ’ 5 0 a a a t a a ‘ a F B a a a a L a a a ‘ ‘ B a a : , C a , a m c B a a a a c a a a ç ( — p 1 , r ç 1 0 ( - a * a O b K a — a 9 a t ’ 5 ‘ t r 0 o B a O b a ’ C r ’ 5 - * b J a a a t a o a o r S S a a s a s a a a • s a t f a — a * I H a a B t f — a a 0 r r c a t f a a a t e r . l c * t r f a a 0 t a a a a a . ! t f a r N a a t a a ata o a a s a — f c a a N a : a a g0 < ; ; O • 0 B B B 0 0 1 a 1 La a a— — a 5 f f n a — RMR 1) 02 ORDER MF\ 46 ha in h rd the learned Coi ns I for II paP e perused the order dt f 8 2011 apparent1 P crc is typographical error t paragraph 9 of the order recording Rs 64 o4( ts C ompc r s t on nste id f Rs 64 640 The ddl Regiser ir Oc ncr ii is d ccted t t ccc sari c i e tion and ft crc a ter i s e 0 s or lereo acco ci i I

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments