km}.
This M.F-IA. is flied under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the judgment and award dated 18.2.2006 passed
in MVC Ne.2S12/2004 on the the of the Chief 3udge.’:’e.:sg;.r;4:rs
of Smaii Causes, Member. Pr}. MACT, Metropofitahhi'”e.’rfea;*..___T’.
Bangaiore (SCCH.No.1),. partly allowing the.~e%ai:rjfs.VVpe:tit.ion;”
for compensation and seekirjg ‘_’errha_ncem.errt._:’gr
compensation,
This Appeal coming en the
Court deiivered the foiltuwjghg:
This aDD§:'3'i§;s.1' enhancement of judgment and award the file of M.A.C.T, Bangalore. dated vr5ebfuar'y 2006.
0’C|aima”n-t?.gs___L_J__Affered grievous injuries in a road
aeti-d_VerrtVA_vt«ha«t:’ovc_eurred on 4.3.2004 at about 11.30 am.,
w’hiAie.*heV ‘w’asVA’erossihg the road. In this regard, claimant
‘VVSOUQTHQ eompensatioh of Rs.10,CI0,000/-. The Tribunai
V’ ‘..f’er1’the basis of the evidence on record has awarded
ec~§r’hgensation of Rs.1,01,600/–. However, hetd the
“”V.:Weontributory negiigence cf 20% on the craimaht, the
Tribune! has awarded a sum of Rs.81’.280/~ with interest.
,l
x _ 3
»./~.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant
claimant has suffered intracerebral conttls’ion.oVVVwxitl1’_”*”
traumatic CSF rhinorrhoea, bilateral__and_’optien’e’t§_rot¥at’lfrg, ‘AV’
multiple mandibular fracture, r~§3arletos§5ceu§§_i–ta”l¥.f
haeamatoma, fracture of leftV_’g-reaterering
sinus, fracture of maxllla, fracture’:-ra’rr:lVs mandible.
He further submitted has also stated
that the claimant has’..l.est’*V.e3r-e neuropathy
problem. . I .
4. Onithe:..e’ther’ lejarned counsel for the
insurance co’:nd’pja..nyV that P.W.2 is not a doctor
who treaAted”the’ medical bills are produced
and as..such;”the=T’ribuna’l taking into consideration the
‘ “evlde-n’:Ce.,’en ‘record hastawarded reasonable compensation.
H VVThue;_’*L:aeeltClent is not in dispute; No doubt, P.W.2 is
V -not the who treated the claimant. Nevertheless,
,éLx~.P4_an’d:Ex.P5 clearly show the injuries suffered by the
‘_”&rA.;’:l”aVéVrnant. E><.P11 is the X-ray'
6. It appears that the ciaimant was not in _
to give evidence and his wife was exami_h~e–d….’:€iS
Further, P.W.1 also admitted that7__vthe».,.claitnaht’t
years at the time of the acc.i»de_ht aéndihe as
patient. She has also stated was weak
even before the accidehi;’_.”j’-‘Itisifibihistheseljfirrcyumstances, the
Tribunal has not a_c_:cepte_c.l.. in Ex.P6,
Exi.P9 and the age of
the claimant,..V.e\fii_d;e!nce eorresponding wound
certificate, the claimant cannot
be disputed. é’ ,
So far as”th.e.«ioss of eyesight is concerned, the
V.V,e\zi.dence.._is~~-clear. In regard to medical bills, it has
cor”ne’in the”‘..e_\iii1’dVence that B.E.L factory in which he was
‘earlier wo’:§l<ing has reimbursed the amount to the tune of
v~l?is.46;~850/~, though it is stated that medical bills to the
ll'-.___"."turi;e of Rs..'L,40,OOO/- are produced. No original medical
'flxbills are produced. Only to the extent of Rs. 83,0C10,!~, the
medical bills are produced, for which the compensation
has been awarded. It has come in the evidence that the
ciaimant was impatient for about 28 days. Considering the
evidence and eonsidetiag the nature at injuries; the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal reqdiresiilititie
enhancement. Even though it is stated that there…i.sJy';(':)'_l3i:4ésig."
permanent disability, the same cannot
Towards medical expenditure, rea"Son'a'ble'-it<:o;m.be«n_sation
requires to be awarded as agVainst'a__
The same is enhanced j"_;(a'dd"i't'ioVnal
Rs.11,000/–) Towards V ..iVncid_en'tal'y_:'–e§<-penseé;'V-a of
Rs.5,600/– is awarded by another
sum of Rs.S,OO.VO/{' of amenities,
the claimant. of Rs.25,000/-
and anoyt_her_’su:ii’i disability. Thus,
the claiinan_t’ide”ntit_lie’d.ytodav—suni of Rs.51,000/~ in all over
and above theoonwoen’sat:i’e:n’awarded by the Tribunal with
V interefst;
l “S,”T;hei,4ap:pe.al is accordingly allowed in part.
Se/L
E3333
Msu/~