Kattiage Imam Sab vs Narashimaha on 27 January, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 277" DAY OF JANUARY. 20 

PRESENT

TI-IE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE  s::'i~1ELI,UiR 4- _  1'

AND

THE HONBLE3 MR. JUSTICE:oA;.1§.vEi\::J'GQPAL}X1§}oj7vI§;A

MFA.' No.4465/2304. -- T ' "
BETWEEN   -.   

Kattiage Imam Sab ._  .

S/0 Imam Sab, 40_years_... _  '

Goundywork    V     

R/o oundinakbri  _ .    '  

Harapanahalii  V     

Davanagere }Z)istr1;pt " '   "   '  APPELLANT

[By Sriii S. 1s_;T*oT§¢:tg1;'3~ _~ 
AND: A . Z ' VT

1.

Narashnnahia
Sjo Bllddlvaliih
=29′ yéaarsv, Driver’of—-}{SRTC Bus

1′ ~ . _Be,a1_’in.g Ni3–.._KA–22, F-559
“£.)”ep.ot.:. Beiiary District

Marviiagfng Director _
K-.am,_atak*a State Road Transportation
Corporation, Bangaiore

3. The Chairman
Internal Security Fund
KSRTC, Transport Bhavan
K. H. Road

Bangalore

[By Sri. Prakash Shetty, Advocate f01’R2}.

I R}. «~ notice dispensed With, R3 served) I

THIS MFA Is FILED U/S, I”78{1j,_OF_i\/IV A(:T’*A.,c.»AINsT”~
THE JUDGMENT AND AwAR1:IiDATED’27/IV/04 P1.AS.sED+ IN _
MVC NO.523/2002 ON THE F’i};E–I,OF ‘1’H.E».e’IvIL JUDGE
{SR.DN.], HARIHAR, PARTLY D’F,,CREEIN’C2-_ THE fig CLAIM
PETITION FOR CIJIIIIPENSAIIIQ-N AND’ SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COIVIEEENSATION’;-.._’»._ _

THIS MFA r:oMINCID_I\I. Ai§MIi’$S–ION THIS DAY.
MANJULA cHEL:”–..L_II§_J, iiDELI\_}}ERED FOLLOWING:

for the appellant
and Jeeunsel appearing for the
resp0ndent¥insu..rer.. ‘ hi ‘

_x’On pe:’–usa_1___.of the entire records, as far as

oeCu.rre.nCe the accident involving the appellant herein is

in disp’1;.te;p:=.VVsi?ash and negligent: driving of the driver of

‘V the ‘h1is'””VaS.Dpined by the Tribunal, is not challenged before

3. Then coming to the quantum of Compensation,

according to the appellants counsel, appellant has lost 4

teeth. Therefore the learned Tribunal was not

awarding Rs.5,000/– towards loss of 4 teeth?” ”

compensation has to be enhanced. >-

4. On perusal of Ex.P–{L woLtnd::’certificate;* we

that it is not 4 teeth that were aatfiaged tit :;he–;teetdt;ti’t’bt;t’t it
was left upper molar toot-ha of thee”ap.f§e1llant that ‘waswinvolved
in the accident. Even in ‘the ‘affidattfit examination-

in–chief filed by only left upper

molar toothevanld.notiiid-Vt.te’e.tl1.. Under these circumstances, we
are of the “‘o’pinioVn.lftlj1atthis” is not a fit case to consider
enhancement; ofvvcornpensatjiion.

‘~;Acvcordingly;-Vtheflappeal stands disrnissed. E

Sedit-

JUDGE

‘Sag/;:z*7o1 10 St:};/ at

JUDGE