A V ' V . VA 1;, V' Uniiffici' !nzi§ii~ I_nsunmw
% * ' OiIiee;1<&;,?;5, I Flour
= 1 Bangalore -- 560 001
V' , iis Rcgiunal Manager
Vt Mr. Bhuvammdran, Major
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT _
DATED THIS THE 31"' DA}? OF L200: _ T V
% A
THE H()N'BLE MR. JUSTICE; A1$zA1§zD B ' &4
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST Np. :9%éoF (MV)
BETWEEN :
Prim Ruse,
%
Residing at Baliigtflprc 9 . _ ..
Baptist;I;édie$]Sh1d£:fits'”»_ ‘-
Hus1cl;’:_BangalVo1%2-5_6O02§ % APPELLANT
(By sh;-i. V. fzéggeiaaes, Advocate)
-,C’o%y, Regional
Shankarmiiayml Buildings
M. G. ‘Road
” Sfo Shivashankara ?iilai
No. 174, 18338″!!! Colony
Attibele Town, Anekai Taluk
Bangalore District
%
(Owner :2? Tata S3130
KA~04–M–9869)
3. Mr. Ravi, 27 years ‘_
S/0 Chinnzwel « _ u ‘V
Resident of Keiamangalam 1
Ncar Library, Sultanpet
Deakanikote
Dhurmapuri Distsict
Tamil Nadu
(Driver uf Tam Sumo
KA-04~M-9369) 4% ;;._
(sh:-;_ Y. K. Shczshagizi 1-iespmdent No. 1,
Notice to Rcspgndgats 2 3’~d§Spenss’¢€i with)
i ‘aaauauskasg
This Misxmiianaius is filed under 35361509
173(1)Vvtéf”t§1§.V”Véhii:-tes Act’ ‘V against the judgement and
award 29;€}fi,2f}05’§i3.3s¢wd. in MVC. No. 1733/2002 on the
file of this VII Addiié{}n;ii’«J_tidge; Member Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal–3’,~ Bangalore (SCCH—3), partly
allowing the tcigim pctitimz Tor compensation and etc.
‘-‘:t._.1A:’TEiis Appeal’ Véiiifiing on for hearing this day, the Court
A V ‘ ‘ . ‘Ad:¢i’wered ‘£h’§:..f§)21()wing:~
–A JUQGMENT
thé; Cuunsef fur the appellant and the respond<:nL
' W H " , Théfippellant was a piliion tidcr of a meter cycle, when the
.' had met with an accident msuiting in injuzies. The
Z
appellant having undergone treatment was
further sufacfy'. The appellant hll.-;ifl&..&p;*N3U./_'i T
Accidents Claims Tribunal (hcrr:inattérVti3V_.as~'i!.ha
for brevity) for currzpexisatiuzi,
made in her favour. It is':t.'aia
3. The Counsel for that the injuries
included fractarti injurias on both
which has not responded to
physiothézajiyr i of claim are not addttssaud by the
Trilytiliialamure then: is no award towards loss of
“the. pariod of treatment nut towards medical
actually incurred not has the: Tribunal awarded
any towards future medical expcnacs. The amounts
ii towards loss of amcmities and other convantiunal heads
i an the lower side and would require to be enhanced
it substantially.
3
entitled to a £t)l.&iE”S’i:m
6
Insofar as the loss of amenities are cuncemed, the appellant
bcing aged would be deprived of amenities to a greater extent and
notwithstanding, that the appellant has been awarded
towards pain and suflbrirsg and Rs.20,000/~ tcxwasfdsd
disability, the appellant is held c::;tit..k:_d V$:tm-Lt}?
Rs.l0,000I’- towards luss uf amcniticsfig T ” ‘dd
6. Accurdingly, the appeal atpgxdfilant is thus
§::t4if;;’.:’;:6,5Iv’*t”V)();’–d ‘I§\’z’i’t’.'”r iitterest thcrcm at 6%
per annum fwd: d
Sd/-‘
….. Judge