High Court Karnataka High Court

Anthoni Motha vs Parimala Rao on 23 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Anthoni Motha vs Parimala Rao on 23 June, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
 

 2. TiH.E.LQ§IFf§iTA'L:=.ENSURANCE co. Lm,

 N  ....THIS MFA IS FILED UIS 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
 JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATE{):14.2.200S PASSED IN MVC
 ANG.3623/2060 ON THE FILEIOF THE 187" ADDL. EUDGE, MEMBER,
 "MAC?-4,. COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, SCCH No.4, PARTLY
"ALLOWING THE CLAEM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA, BA{s¥GAL{Z§'§'{E"v:.L..j:   

DATED THIS THE 23*" am! 0? EUNE, 2_0{.),L8_"_: '  
THE HOWBLE MR. JusncaAsH9§<v.3L§':1iNcI%i£3E¥{: ' L  
'mace: . ammzs aameg  

sax ANTHONIMOTBA    
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARSAA   L   
JOHN MOTHA, N0.1(3__4,  _   _  N 
BANEARA summrz,'mg:-5a_mmzL%  =  A
BANGALORE6.   " ' ._ 
.... _L   L _ A  APPELLANT
(BY SR1I¢AIKZ"§7C)§'5R1"L~$:H'RIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND _ . _  

1.

Ms,;FAR1MALA-RAG’

A_ Nc§4.’S:8/11.; 37? CRGLSS, LLLL
1?*’*”:?sL0c:a<, "}A_YANAGAR
A §ANGAL{5'~RE:5'6{)_ 011.

[}.{).IV, VDAVITHRA SOUTH AVENUE

— BANf3’ALOR’E’- 1 1
BY ITSMLANAGER.

RESPCJNQENTS
(BY SR1 B.S. UMESH, ADVGCATE FOR R2)

ENHANCEMENT OF CQMPENSATEON,

THIS MFA COMING on FOR HEARING THIS DAY, me-:::0l.;R’:’
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ,

J_Q_Q§_fi.E_!l

This appeal is directed against the §iLldvg»ment.’_4’ah§fl” a%~;~%a{0,ll0a:edi

14″‘ February, 2005 passed by the Meter’A<:§lldent–l"Clairlns

Bangalore in M.V.C. 030.3623 ef.;O0OA.,~"

2. The brief facts of the tf.aseA._are’__’thh:at lead traffic accident
on 313* August, 2t3.00′;««_the multiple injuries of
grievous nature. sum of Rs.S1,000f-. Its

break-up is as felleeis: ”

Sl.No. – 0 _ A:.ljV”;”.5’rt’;§~é’:’\’iEl.r3 Arlnlgllnt

Pain ala0._cme%l;s§ 20,000.00

Amenities ” 10 ,0Ofi.00

~ liledlcal expe£1’ses__§n:} incldentals 5,000.00

‘9fj’§33ve 10,000.00

seeker

V ” -» l?’utl.:_r£::.;”i=.eCii€:al expenses 6,000.00

0. ‘ . ” ‘,. Total 51,000.00

3.”‘~Srl .l%i.\:’-..l’«l”§laik, the learned counsel for the appearing for Sri

– , .j’i,si2ri’bad VTV. Shastri fer the appellant prays for reasonable enhancement

ameiants awarded under different heads.

The appellant has suffered fracture 0f shaft of left humerus.

‘ Hertha: an inpatient for five days. The doctors evidence states that

3324.

terms of this} j’0dgh9tent.

0 Inn

7. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000]- towards mtut¢’0je.dical
expenses. As the doctor has said that the expenditure….i.tn_p¥:i’§:ét~§0§:s
couid be Rs.28,000/1. E feel it necessary to award 0′

under the said head.

8. Now the modified award stands adfotloyts:

'    Amount
SLNO.      [R3]

Rain and sufferirzg  ,    25,000.00

Loss of arrfinitifitsd . 0′ 20,000.00
Medica!;e)€p’enses1’__ 5,000.00
Loss of pasti.,in;t:Gmé ‘fOfuth£’..I3’it3-Ufl period 15,000.00

Future-nf;¢tf.icai”‘ta;-(;>ei’t$<=:s "" 11,000.00
: '1 Total 76,000.00

E-":"?-'!"f"

9. It is éimjified Vtha.tAVthe:’}:g»rriounts enhanced herein shail carry

interest at_;fthe..rate of her tannum from the date of claim petition till

:the data 10f V

. £5 d¥ree:tec¥ to draw up the modified award in

The appeal is aliowed in part. N0 arder as to’ costs.

Sd/-E