High Court Karnataka High Court

Rahul S/O Neelakantha vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 9 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Rahul S/O Neelakantha vs The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd on 9 February, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & A.S.Pachhapure
 %'"§£G§~§ CQWRT

§  awum-_ms_:mRwAmm wam cmw my mmmmm mcaw com? 0? mamm§<<:,z::  

in THE man comer on  »*21¢A*{i"AIiA.V "  "   

cmcurr amen AT  "   '

DATED THIS THE 9% 1)4.t.1z_"_ on F3_1i'auAI¢{.?;   

I-1=:£s$'r6»'§£ »

ms HOWBLE am. 3531*?
THE I«1ormz.,n%; :.t1§.%;ii:si%Ifxcma\,a;mL?«:*,z-rrxnpvrzrs
     '
nmwmmn

Rahui S] o.NeeIakantha,VV"--. '
R/at H.NustvSh;a}3;abad, Chittapur'I'a1u.1;,
Guibarga District.

3. Srih/ianan Malik,
S/<::.Ab1.-).._

This MFA is filed under S€c1ioI;"'173(It.) 'e:~f_ :12: praying

against the judgment am}. awax;:,...;1atea..FA15.'3'.'2eo6,'passed in
MVC.No.56-4/2005 on the  of  IEV!_'*v..IK'c'iditionai Civil Juége
(Sr.Dn.) 8:. Membsr, MACT--VIII,'a§3oWing the claim
partition for comptin--safi(§tt    enhancement of

comptmsation. _  =..

Thisvt}.-.1-F..A on'»£§2=.i:e;a:i.~.r2g_ fins day, SABHAHIT 4.,

dtalivered fl};   __ ~'
" V' * _  

This apfital by  who sustaéned persona} injuxy

 cefifizecgfienvt pe19so:1.a=:l' disability in a motor acciéent that

 is filed being aggrieved by the quantum of

 tt..A'_VVt?eompe§:§sagti§§n, by :1; Additional Civil Jutige (Sr.Dn.) and
VV"'..A_.:\;2e;;ubcx;' ..ha?I2§<.i'i*:\;*;:I, Guibarga in Mvc.No.s64/mos dated
  the pendency of this appeal seeking for
  _§m;ht:§t1%ééfitent of compensation, I.A.I/O8 has been filed under Order
t   27 CPO, seeking for permission to lead additional

 téxtidcncc Iegaxfling further treatment taken by the claimant-

injumdfippcllant herein regarding replacement of the kllfiif joint. £1:
§f« <5 AX """

is avcrred that a sum of Rs.I,74,621j~ is pmdfiaag towards {ha



 ;;;;;fi.f'...'REi31§(3NiiENfi*si



 g zgwsi £..uUE~Hfi9Jt;f 'EWKWAIMKA Him-i COURT OF KARNATAKA I-HGH COUR? OF  ;   §~§§@,fi QQURT

further itreatment of the injuzeei and pztesent bills    

has been produced along with the afxplieafiensfgf'-.';§rc§¢{£§ctjd1-;_{of  ':

additioaai evidence filed under»e e:g1erV"4.1%"  
appeliaat herein while he was   Hider  a
motorcycle bearing No.  j' by  oV1A:v1e Ravi on
7.12.2004 at about §0.30p1;1_   by Tata Safari
bearing regstlafiché   by its driver in
a rash and  to the motor cycle
and pefitiééneg   disability and therefore
claim pefifisii  ffiegi  driver, owner and insurer of the

ofiending xrehicie: ~ V

'   pct'fi;ion_was resisted by respondents 1 and 2 by filing

n V sep}§L::§ié..c§j’c;§i>igns{‘Qtatment. inquiry was held by the Tribunal
examined. himself as PW .1 ans} aiso
PWIQ-Medical Offwer who treated him arid certified his
The claimant also got marked Exs.F’1 to P19. On behalf
V ‘V respondents, no era} or documentary evidence was
3é&e1.ueed. The Tribunal held that the accident occuued due ts rash

V. and negligent driving of Tata Safari driven by its driver and

petitioner sustained irljmy in the said accifient and has aiso

‘\_-‘;’r~»5″

Iuwuau Ur i’fi.£*”kf§.l”tfii%ia”&J§”W*”§a i”£l\.3’E”‘! !..U%.IKlAL;’3_” mammmxemx =’ -1-T,~3§?3¥*«%fi«7ffire§{$% HIGH CQURT OF KARNAVAKA HIGH CQUR? £3? KARNATAQ HIGH COEURE?”

sustained consequent disabfiity and awalfieé’ ‘ .

Rs.1,4?’,’?65/~ with interest at 3% 2frem: ‘£he

petition till the date of

‘compensation shall be paid by the

respondents and j on 15.3.2006.

Being aggrieved by the ithe MAUI’ claimant
has pzefe1red_ V’ enhancement of
compensation. :v’fV’143fe§:. mgaxdifig negligence
and entitle@e1_1!’c’_Af0r compensation and liabiiiiy
of the Iespemlenet has become final as the

same net bee11.vehai1e1.3:§;eei by the respondents and wherefore,

deterxem ation in this appeal is:

quaiitum of compensation awaxdeci by the

L “~”V’I’x’ibunAez1_Vis itaatiefiiiate as to call for enhancement in this appeal?

2. Whether the applicatitm flied under Order 41 Rule 27

be allowed’?

K 3) What order?”

we answer the above points as foilowsz

Poini No.1; In the afirmative.

Point No.2: In the aifirmative

vi’ ‘

I=;E:;€«;:’§’ mwmmm HIGH COURT

” m:n¥£fl,l”‘$:i&£l””¥:fk”Q-l!”‘% n”w\.mi”1 muuug ,w;_1f’ EAKNAIAKA PHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR? €335 –

refunding any amount if the f x

satisfied the order passed by the

stage and the same can be adjuSif1é d…i_n wouid

be awarded by the Tzibugal. Ac<V;§}r<§l§.';%1gi3:,LA wx.=, pafis foliowing
onder: V ' V .

;.A.z/03 filed gmgier (}’1*tié1f41 is allowed. The
judgment and :’}§§if’I(ii1:iona1 Civil Judge
(sx-.911.) and l\:£:3;_£.’V,”;’::”vV,;*A§:I’vI,L}1$ii$%r§;%§_ :Vin:’::M;VC.No.564/2005 dated
£5.3.2006 is remitted :0 the Tribunal to
pass flesh t0 the appellant to

adducc cvidefice ‘kin Ehe document that are now remitted

be ‘pf(.'(§u(E3éE3. thcfiifiéaficr pass the award, in accomlanct: wflh’

is dmzcte’ d to dispose of the pefitsion,

any rate not later than six naenths from the

_. : -i.’1{:”‘l.VfL’?. of bf copy of this cmtier and the lower court mcords.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sci/–

W. JUDGE