BEFORE Sri.,M.Ag1_m1c_ s_Io.s:-i.1\éa¢11;-.11, Aged about 10 years. V. " Since minor mflma-enmd by Mother and natural SII1t.l'\ITliit'ia, resfieflt fvf * ' T . } Ragigudda Slum, J.P.Naga'r,,_ J ' III Phase, * _ V (By Smt.G,.K.£a3tpé§E_iya.':_A§iv.) 1% 1.
..—-..:– —-1-:
smt.s;Vatsata-subzwamanya.
WichM.4R.Sub1amanya;,»_
Major, LResident”t:xf Nd:—1566,
aeth C1bas,”BSKII*–Stag’e,
gaaugalom 560 070.
~co;.I}1’4t!?_.’ ; its Bran
:’€o;35’~’ti 1;”S1′”-inivasarviansion,
‘mth B7Main Road, srd Block,
“‘««Jay;ar1ag’ar, Bangaiore – 560 O1 1.
l\flI../=a.;Siemens Information
V «Systems Limited, No.84,
” KEONICS Electronic City, Hosur Road.
Bangalcre # 561 229. %FOUDEH’l’§
‘ (By Somasundaradixit, for R-1
Smt. Harini Shivanand, Adv. for R-2,
R-3 served but unrcpmsented)
This appeal is filed u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act
against the Judgment and Award dated 05.01.2006 passed in
MVC No.3594_I 2001 on the file of the XI Addl. Judge; of
Small Causes 8:. Member, MAC’I’., Metropolitan A;ea,,Bafn.ge1ore
{SC}.-CH-12}, part-1_’,r 5-.!…1m.-dag the olaizn writ:-Lon for?
and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This Appeal coming on for:~1’inal«hea1i1;tV’§_i’,,f’tl1is:day,x”thej«
Court delivered the foilowzing:
s 1. This is an apgem t seeking enhancement ofcompGnsfitAi.°1i.;"V» 0 2. about 5 years at -the time of on 03.02.2001. He
sufiered He was admitted to Sanjay
Hospital; tteatment as an inpatient for 3
days.” The was treated conservatively.
‘ TA moved the Claims Tribunal through his
guardian under Section 166 of the Motor
claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,05.000/ -.
The mother of the injured-claimant was examined as P.W.1
._ einss’-‘e$tamina’fion, he has admitted that
-3..
consideration of the evidence on record, ” ” has
awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 22,000/– towards pain
and suffering, Rs.3,000/- towards
Rs.2,000/- towards incidental charges,
loss of earnings during the laid. j 2
disability and Rs. 1o,ooo_/- of L
9.1.1, a ._u_1’_I1 of R_s.48,Q(_)(_),I-V Vcoiiipe-‘nsationi
the said” ‘ head keeping in mm’
the p_hysic’a1.sufl’eIed by the claimant.
\J’I
. C
E
5
3
5
simple’ and the patient was discharged ticuee
_ dayss» 1 He has also stated that the patient took followup
it ‘~AV_V’tteéit1nent on two occasions. It is further stated by the Doctor
that the fracture was united well. However, he has assessed
the disability at 13% of the whole body. The Tribunal has
‘4.
UV
not awarded any compensation nnder tn’ irrad i”‘1ir-
less of income in the absence of any permanent-disahiiity
suflened keeping in mind the evidence on Iecoztifiiyciitiisf and
documentary, particularly of the Doctor. is: ‘tc
show that the fracture has Iesiiitkid-~ in
impairment.
6. The Tribunal has iV2s.s,ooc/-
towards disability. ‘:_’.Ql’:11e the results in
destabilization of bone cieiiié¢ii.ie+rhough the fracture
dial n-t the claimant
‘”110 is if hL1 Jiioyment of life
and we. T1-.e
, a sum of Rs.10,66Gi- under ‘uus”””
In” 1riew,n_n6iher sum of Rs.10,000/- deserves to be
i1ndei’ii’ie’head disability and loss of amenities. As
i Vi and sufierings undergone, the Tribunal has
‘i__F.’.:e.22,000/-, which is slightly on the lower side.
He. claimant is entitled for Rs.25,(J00[- under this head
. Re.2?.-.(.\()0,l-E In A ether respects, the amount
-5.-
7. In the result and for the fomgoing, the apfi is allowed
in part. The compensation to which the claimant is enfijzicd is
determined and fixed at Rs.61.000/-. The ciaimeiiif
for interest at 6% pa. on the enhanced amounf
of petition till its realisation. e.
deposited Within a period of six weeeeeem £he%e1epieiiVeé5%;’i-eiieipt %
cf 3. mp3; of this jud.%en.-=
PKS