A:w..{:(
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO5§Er
DATED mzs THE 4*" DAY OF JUNE, 20055'
BEFORE
THE 1-sc>N'a:..E MR. JUSTICE A.N.\{EA§§Q:GQPALA'AG§)WE§fX __ :'
Miscellaneous First A:Jp§.a_,"'_io. 2Q.'I3'.7" (v'¥~';'i/3
BETWEEN:
Sharavanan, S/0 Balm V
Aged about 29 years, "
Puttaramapath Viilage,
Kurimaiai Post, I I I
Poiuru Taiuk,
TamElNadu.__ 'V ' .. .
' % Q .. A?PELLANT
(BY Sré. c.
I ( 1)= .. 'fhfi 'A?raj)re_itcr
" 4:'-'«.S';»..Tra%'rsspjort Pvt. Ltd
~. '--..,Mati::'r;»a Mansion,
A No.a6,"_Nungabakkam High Schooi,
"Shanna.
=»,Thé"United India Insurance C0,, £..td.,
Flegionai Office,
'Sharzkamarayan Suiiding,
MG. Road,
Bangalore.
Represented by its Manager.
..RESPONDEN'¥"S
(By Sri. U. Abéui Khadar for R2 )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 1?3(1)
ACT AGAIN$T THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD {_}ATE.D':.,A'
29.7.2906 PASSED IN MVC NC}. 8440/2035 ON§'i"HEv.F_ILE
OF THE IV ADDL. JUDGE,' MEMBER, MACT, V'
SMALL. CAUSES, METROPOLITAN
(SCCH-6), PARTLY ALLOWENG THE: 'CLAIM T_PETI'T--I(}N'
COMFENSAHON AND SEEKING,
COSVWENSATION.
This apoeai comirigon fe~r"heeriri§-this eeig; the Court
delivered the following: _
This aie§:V>e§_i-a%it"i$iho':--h-gate"--so:r:cie.ed.ed in part, in a ciaim
petitionVvii'iii€4:£z'*~ti:'§*i.hirrifigGnéer'*$ect'i_'ofi '£65 of the Indian Motor
VehicIe$L'Aét._ i988;."':hes..:fi'iAetithis appeai, dissatisfied with
the qu_e_nturri~of'ceh':.peneatinon awarded in his favour by the
The "fihd--ie§ of the tribunal with regard to
_e'ctione_bi.e'i:'ie§jiig.ence on the part of the 15* respondent,
re.7sii’it’ih’g i’n’.V’vthe:’ihjuries being sustained by the appeilant in
‘Vibe reaetraffic accident and the consequential mas and the
A “?fi’ieV¥:Viiity of the insurance Company to pay the award
ariiount, is not under chaiienge. The chaiienge in this
appeei is oniy to the quantum of compensation assessed
and awarded by the tribunal. K’
K
2. I have heard learned counsel fer appeii-‘antVe«h:d:’t’he_”‘_*a’ ”
learned counsei for the 2″‘ V-respo«nd–ent_””Errg;,1ra.fl£et’v..
Company.
3. Sré C.Puttaswarny, “‘eea¥nedvh the
appeiiant by taking and 2
and Exs..P1 to P11 contended”‘t~h.e’b~:Va,rri’ount awarded
under the hea_ds;’:.1’%aed;i:caI€_ahd_.:_”raIa’tad~–~VVexpenses, loss of
income durihg reduction in future
income;’fs’V_rhea:g.;fgr:§_earz§’_ed _cevaVhvseI contended that, the
ev§dence”.:;_n” been properly assessed to
awardaampadnsatiohrz, eseeciaiiy, in respect ef said heads,
“””
Sri Abdul Khadar, by taking me
_ through..__’the«f’finéings of the tribunai in the émpugned
:j’udgh1er3t”subm%tted that, the tribunai has awarded just
a._¢’cimp–ensation and {I3 enhancement is cafled for.
X
/.
S. I have perused the records. The pointfifor
consideration is, whether the amount awarded.._’gy”jétthe-4V.
tribunal is just in the facts and circumstances ” H
6. There is no dispute that
under the head medical expenses, ‘which is s’u.;:tjor*tedi*.
medicat bins. Though the appe¥iisa:ht waswan ‘Ai’r;-spatrentt and
has taken treatment..d§’s.;ha{gVe” and has
incurred exp$enses'”‘towards– extra-nourished diet
and attehd’aet’:ivi,ghiaéigaggfto has been awarded.
Considermd the and period of treatment
in the factsta’:xd”cir;:urestaritt:es of the case, it wouid be gust
“V.1;_o asA}ar;.i.AV:anA.adidttiw-at sum of Rs.15,00G/- towards the
V’ sa’id_ ex:%er§dit’t:..re’.–..
is VT¥7h’efl.tribunai has awarded Rs.3.,200/- being the
“‘~.-ehioss incurred during the period of treatment i.e., Rs.1u0/-
for 3.2 days, during which period the appetiant was
‘ impatient. Immediateiy after discharge, the appeiiant
. couid not have attended to work. tasking at the nature of
taken foiiow up
it
/.
injurtes sustained, he wouid have
In the result, the appeai is aliowed in
Additional compensation of Rs.53,100/- is award;ed,’_.’;:$?__l1’l~L:.;fi’
snail carry interest at 6% p.a. from the oate..of_j*p.etitl::on tiil’ V
the date of payment. The 2″”; res:po;nden:t__.’
Company shall deposit the emanced’.;iompens*etlo:n”infgtne
tribunal within a period of 3 mofitlils fromdtodtlayvj costs.
Reglstry;is’t§T:ifected to award.
d/3
V .V Ksj/’