High Court Karnataka High Court

Meharaj Ramjan Makandar vs The General Manager on 30 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Meharaj Ramjan Makandar vs The General Manager on 30 August, 2010
Author: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 3071' DAY OF AUGUST, 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BO1éA;i\:NAjA f f  _

M.F.A. No. 2 1 1 12/2008 {MY}.  '  .

BETWEEN:

SMT. MEHARAJ
RAMJAN MAKANDAR

AGE: 48 YEARS

OCC: ONION BUSINESS 
R/O UTTUR, TQ: AJARA. 

DIST:   I'  .....APPELLANT
(BY SR1.I-I.ARIS'I£':'E3HIIIJEXI-(TUE, ADV)
AND . 1 1 1

THEIOENERAL "MANAGER

-  I  "MVA'HAE'§ASI~{TRA STATE
 ROAD ~TRANSP.ORT CORPORATION
A-.MUMBv.AI»,..REI>_BY DIVISIONAL

CONTROLLER, KOLHAPUR. .....RESPONDENT

{By SR1, ZANGADI ASSOCIATES)

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR

“VEHICLE ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
OATEO 25.7.2008 PASSED 1N MVC NO2569/2005 ON

THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK

§
£2

Ix)

COURTAI 823 MEMBER, ADDL. MACT., BELGAUM,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING E)NHANCEMEP>IT”»IOF
COMPENSATION.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSIONA?’f’TI§IjI’vsi.i ~

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLQW.I.NG;:~ _

JUDGMEEIQ 1

The claimant in i\/IVCjjN_o.25t3*-9.’/2005is.

Court, seeking enhancemeintji’ of cornvpe’nsation as
against the sum awaideel

2. Heard the 1ear.n.:e_d, Counsei1’yt.”Oi5i.Vthe parties and

perused V it
3x.The fact: had suffered injuries

in the accident which occurred on 21/7/2005, is not in

– ~,._,djispute”.> Insofariaisiiithe claimant, the Wound certificate

Ex.–P’7, which indicates the injuries to

the”«._1eft___vI’ore?’ head and spinal region. The claimant had

jialso s’ufiiered injuries on the knees. In respect of the

A._i”s_a’1n–ei, the Claimant had undergone treatment and

~-doc’uments were produced at Ex.P~8 and Ex.P«9. The

Tribunal has awarded the global compensation Of

‘\,.J

Rs.10,000/~. In a mater of this nature, the Very perusal

of the documents at EX.P–7 and Ex.P~8, medica1_reic’ord.s

wouid indicate that the claimant had suffered:”i_nLj.Lfrfes V’

the spinal region and also there “”W3.S fof–fthe–.A

teeth. These itself would indicate”.tha_t

suffered due to the injuresVs-ajfferedf.in,_the_’accident and
as such the compensvatixon t;,.ndvf\\§3’1″f:.rhee.conxtentional head
ought to have been a sum of
Rs.15,000/- “and suffering.

Considering’fthgttff–et’i€_ suffered Eoosening of
the for the same
and had not believed the

medical certificates’ issued by the M.B.B.S. Doctor, the

‘f V. “‘faectV”ethat”‘he’t’wouldvhafre undergone treatment for teeth

‘cannot ftdispttted and therefore, in my View some

amount have to be awarded on the head of loss

Vearnfenities and as such Rs.15,000/- is awarded

said head. Further a sum of Rs.5,000/~ is

awarded under the head medical expenses. In addition,

‘W a sum of Rs.10,000/~ is awarded to make good the

shortfall under all other heads inclusive of 1ai_«_:i_ up

period.

4. Therefore, compensation would urc:ft~: otjtfto ”

sum of Rs.-40,000/~. Since, thevtri’bLI..na1–‘_”hae a;

sum of Rs.10,000/w, the claimnanti’-‘. ité’t ehtitied

enhancement of Rs.3O,0OO/+–V.ao:§iIith irvitetfeetatxthe”‘same V

rate and manner as rayvardeci Ttibu11’a1. The
enhanced amount with deposited by
the respondent’t:o’rpoif’attofi.; of 6 weeks
from the of this order. On

depositgtttthye’ chvstbvtxrsed to the claimant.

in te’;:uI1ts,vof’aT:)io_j¢xe, appeal is disposed of. No

ordef-é:ast’to cost”s–.~.__ _____

Sig?”

EUDQE

VV’ :jVh1″b