Mfa1779.06
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT
DATE!) 1'1-ns THE rrrfi DAY or APm:,;["26é«s «--f: .
THE Horrnm MR.Juis:1*xcm;:'A.r:.i¢v,;iF.gfrzz; ,{ ' _ j
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A9r_EA1}"n_¢*. A " j T.
BETWEEN:
Sri. Rag' Shetty, _ 3
81¢ Late Venkata Shetty, A v
Hindu, now aged 35 years,. V A
R /at No.24, Jajzkur Main :R;§:ad*-,..
Bangaloreg-4"5i3Q'e9r;_. _ :APPEI.LAN'l'
(By sa.--w.c;"se£hii2; Advzgww
1. Sri. Ravindray I«;un;~._ar,~~-"
Sfo,Latc VRa3'z.1,
'Hi;1_du,__ Majof,' ---------- -A "
" R/gt. No..__133, Jakzmr Layout,
' " ~ B_anga:1mjc----~_56o 094.
Manager,
._ Insurance Co. Ltd. ,
l'io.'1.V2, Next to Canara Bank,
Beviizixy Road, Hebbal,
" ' gangalom -- 550 024. ; RESPONDEHTS
'<.(§y'r5a/s. Axis Law Inc. by
Bri. 81-eedhar .K as Suman I-Iegde, Advs.
" - for R.-2 (Absent); Notice to R-I dispensed)
This appeal is filed u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicies Act
against the Judgment: and Award dated 27.09.2005 passed in MVC
910.3654/2003 on the file of the IX Add}. Judge, Member, MACTJE',
Court of Small Causes, Metropoiitan Area, Bangalore (SCCHJF),
Mfa1779.06
2'
partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and'--.__seeking
enhancement of compensation. *
This Appeal coming on for hearing, this V5C.eu1't
delivered the following: = _
Junamzm': é %
1. This is an appeal by meA:'~1nj-aged ;;1,-5:23.112"
enhancement of couapeixsationg
2. The case of the that on
20'O3'2003 he Rider 011 a
TVS 50 XL vséefége 3732, a comessa
car came against his vehicle in
Whiqhive personal ingflries to him.
In ..-the Tnbmax, the appellant got
himself 'asA'i?W='i and marked documents Exs. P. 1 to
1_.,1;;.e..V_injuA1"ed"'~:,*¢iio was the corztesfing respondent filed
‘ fibjecfiofis not lead any evidence.
3. ‘1_’__he has found 011 apgareciation of the evidence
Q11 that there was lacerated, injury suffered by the
in the accident. The iznjury is described as bone deep
The claimant was an inpatient for 3 days in Baptist
Hospital fnom 20.03.2003 to 23.03.2003. The Triburzai has»
awarded a global compensation of Rs.5,000/ . Aggxieved by the
év
Mfa1’779.0£’3
3
inadequate compensation awaxdeel, the claimant
appeal seeking enhancement.
4. I have heard iearneci
counsel for the respondent~Insmance:Con1pan3f pI«’esent.L
5. ‘ On consideration of I find that
the Tribunal has ” of quantifying the
compenaation under “arriving at a fiajr
and ‘g1ot:a} sum of Rs.5,000/–
awarded under the fisicm and the claimant has not
suffered the grievous nature of the
in§u.:je$ séufifered .J–n1ade to take treatment in different
V’ _ “tin sufipcrtiof which he has produced Gut Patient
V is bone deep injury and has made the
approach difierent hospitals R31′ examination and
ueaanent. The claimant has produced certain medical bijiis.
A C’ aiso pmduced the Discharge Sumznaxy and the Wound
it filertificate.
6. Taking note of the seriousness of the injury suffered by
the clainiant, although there is no fractutai injury, I am of the
View that the Tribunal ought to have assessed compensation
6*