IN THE HIGH COURT or
cmcurr BENCH AT DHARWAAB- ”
DATED THIS 1’32 23313 DAY’ or T’
THE HOIIPBLE MR. Jt18TICE”‘Ii¢i§_.
m.2′-us.
BETWEEN: ‘” V
SR1 E-IANUMESH ._
S,/’C3 BM. EJQSHE _
AGEDABou’:f5?_YE:§Rs . _ _
WORKING%_IN
DEvFA’¥<"'£'-MEET, 0 SRINIVAS "
3/2:3 LATE Si!.~".SH£k{;'HA\R'*,~ _1sr WARD
CHE'T¥{AWP.DIGE,_HOSPET _
i3ELLA.R'Y%9IsTRsCT
' . '_ 2 " ,.APPELLANT
V, :3? SR1 GOiJ'Ei'm;GARAJ, ADV}
A A N33};
. E6’/S b’éi:;3ééTAL INSURANCE ca. LTD,
‘BY ms meawca MANGER’
” = -.§E1..LARY DESTRICIT
BRANCH OFFICE, Sm WARD
ST§{E’§QN RQAB, HOSPET
KS RESP’€I3NfiEN’§’
{fly SRE F’.§”{. PRW&R, AQVJ
‘\ ‘
4’ 2 ‘ 1 :'”‘x
L./
.- V
TEES APPEAL IS FILED U/S 3373(1) 01:’ _:.s.¢?i}”;:t*;?ij-;A_{}:*s2_1_i~:s’r
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 23.12;2e04’T’pAss1;:f> rm.
MVC NO. 133;1999 ON THE FILE_O.F_’_1’HE_-C1\?IL»J;UE§GEA.(S£2.}f)’N}4
AND JMFG-CUM-MEMBER, :a,¢Ac’1j§I’x;,. HosIf>E’1f,.,V_”‘ifmé«TLx*.__
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETiT§ON E;-‘Q12’cGMAP2n3A-?:o.r:<g,ND "
SEEKING FURTHER ENHANCEMEN’1″‘._OF’ c0ru§Pi*_iI~:sAT1<3:~:."% _
THIS APPEAL COM¥,N*{}_ ON" F_C:RV R.DMI$SION THIS
BAY, THE COURT DELEVEREDTEIE FGLLGWENQ:
~,.'-I————-u—-»—.U
This appeal is aggrieved by tbs
;{:,:£:V3ViIl}é3;(§'£3:,;3§§E8"Ei0I§;VVVE§.i»VaII1€d by the Tribunal in its
aweim daied ;2:"3 j; M.V.C.No. 133/1999.
, 2; A. ‘fhe”””ré1evant porticen of the awantl reads as
. .”x’?¥.:?§{ioner in thia case is examined as P.W.5. In his
é’v§tiemcc:., he has cieariy stated that he has sustaincd
1′ grievous injuries in the said aacident and he has
spent huge axnount etc. But ta substantiate his
contention, he has not prtzaducad any documents to
Shaw that he has sustained gievous, injuries and he
has spent some amount for medical treatment. But
petitioner” has pmdumci Wound certificate, which is
marked at Ex? 1 L It discknses that he has sustained
‘R
\ -//f
3
only one injury L6,, out iaceratcd wound at frontal
regon measuring 2 X 5 cm. The Medical ofiicer
opined that said injury is simple in nature:
considsring nature of the injury, I am of ~ V
that it is a tit case to award globai ~
R-s.2,000/–. So petitioner is entitled for.r2ifi>in;§eii:sa.tionVi ”
of Rs’2,{}00/- from :*espons;iéiit”‘No&_.IiitogHencéi,’
answer this issue acc0r<iin%:17'i'"i=i'iiiA. " V'
3. i find no justriftable grouzld to
smmmmms
reasoning of the Tribunal. is hereby
disIIViiisséci.– .. ff
Sd/=~
JUDGE