IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.--AT
BANGALORE 7
DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY or
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS"l'I( 3E Iv§I}£;UéV*.::&_I1)ji{(;§§§A1§?i£!2;?sH V
M1s(,j_:«:LLAN gousjrmsr 'AP'E?EALv:I§€);'?585; OF k A %
2&1 My)kk -
BETWEEN:
B.N.KI'l'ShnaI;F£,Hl'th}f,_.~-- _ '
S./0 Nagara§a'ppa, Z. _.
Aged abeut 2E.%;j'jg'§;farsg« _ _V
Residing at_:1'S¥_aj>."1 58,. '
Bi(iarahaI}i;»VVirgonag&L: --
Ashckanagaii."-- ' ' ...APP'ELLANT
(By & Sri.L-Harish Kamar, Advs.)
.....
V’ Director,
Depo,
A ._Sarig2 Bifgavana,
1 T Bg}:g§10m~560027. …RESPONDENT
V’ V’ Smt.H.R.Renuka, Adv.)
41*!!!
This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated 22.12.05 passed in MVC
No.655}f(}4 on the file of the Member, V Add]- MA-CT, Mayo
QM
Hal} Unit, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area,
Bangalore (SCCH-20), partly allowing the claim petition for
compcnsatinn and seeking enhancement ef compméation.
This M.F.A. coming on for orders C9911
delivered the fo11owing:- ‘ .
JUDGfiggg Aj, §}
This appea’1 ~–by “for enhancement
-3f compensation the award passed by
the MACT, Bangalarc in
Q; %
1.30 pm. near Bidarahalli crass bus
s1_r»,af;:1c.*Z..%_vv’i1cAAIi”fl:s—-«n’iaim&nt was about to board the has bearing
2333 since the driver 0f the said bus negligenfly
A m<;?¢é§'_– 313 vehicle withaut observing the signal, the claimant
at}:-Jfdaawn and sustained gricveus injuries. Claimant was treated
at M.S.Ramaiah Haspitai and ether hespitals. Stating that he
has become permanently disabled, the claim petition was filed.
The matter was cnntested by the rcspondenti'BMTC. On the
W
The disability might to have been taken at 15% tci"'t1ic whole
body since the disability is deposed at 50% toIiiii'a0.'and
it would not come to 30%. Accordingly, rasiificd xi
6: The claimant has;i'si;_fi'er<i§£iiiisiqcaiiiiiiiii iliifiiiiip,
Grade: 111 B Fractuifcf: gr 1000 pg1§0; between left
superior and 'wound over the distal
third of 0;e;g;g0t On 15.10.04 and
6.11.04-' oi: him. He has also taken
fofidisifi Hospital. He is said to have
}i0spit0.ij§§§i~.f0:~..:gi0:i:-*iy 99 days from 10.10.04 to 4.1.05.
'f-113 Rs.60,0(}0I- on the head of pain
i towards medicine, Rs.5,000f-
ii ii ii_c»i£rishinc11t, Rs.20,0Wf- towards attendance and
Rs.20,{)90/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.36,000¢’-
” vaiuovsiéiids loss of incame for the laid up period, Rs.l,G3,GO0f-
fiiwards loss of future incumc and Rs.6,000f- towards future
medical expenses.
7. So far as the disability is conoemed, it is stated that the
claimant has suffered disability at 55% tu me igfilspsm limb
and 30% to the whole body. It is the gzicvagéiciéél
Counsel for the appellant that 213%
the whole bcady by the ‘lieight
£9 have been taken I.llé’s’lJl’lOlF’?lE body, instead
the Tribunal itself side: by taking the
income: menth. It has rightly
Ii’.il.}~’,08,000j* on the head of loss
offiiturgg that Rs.36,000f- has been
awfidw earning during the laid up period. The
iiijiirics uslufibred thi: claimant is only to the particular region
” 4 i isjiin fl1’e_._lcfi hiiiland lefl: superior and inferior tame and not on
so as to cause disability and he could vary well
“do “other avacation.
,i.E.w-
/1
8. In the circumstancss, the claimant is net entitled fer
any enhancement. Accerdingly, appeal is
Smt.H.R.Rennka is t0_-‘fiie’.Ii’;’;r “§%ai;31a§Ei1″_
rc6P0i3dent’BMTC within four
%%} fi[“*Iadqe