IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 281"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 2010 BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sR1«:I«:NIvAs§«:':<3§?;';jv§mA Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 8844 of BETWEEN Gangamma, W/0. Balakrishna, Aged 49 Years, R/at. Jathila House. Balpa post and Village, Subrahmanya Post,"-. _ Su11iaTa11uk. 1 . = AV Appellant .1. R2ivi_nd._ra"'Reii; = _. A, S/0.4"G._Qpannei'.Raii. , Aged abcut 35VYears, ' 3-Residing at'uK'a1enja House V -.VS'L111ia"'Ta1uk, _Thef()rienta1 Insurance Co. Ltd., .. Branch Office, "Kiishna Prasad Building. Main Road, Puttur, Rep/ by its Manager. Respondents
(By Sri. S. V. Hegde Mulkhand. Adv. for R2.
R.1 — Served]
fir’
This MFA is filed U] S 173(1) of l\/IV Act against the
judgment and award dated 02.01.2007 passed in MVC
No.1486/2002 on the file of Member. MACT, _l?_uttur,
Dakshina Kannada, partly allowing the claim ‘petition
for compensation and seeking enhance_n’1*ent”‘.,_’of
compensation. L” ‘~
This appeal coming on for Orders,»
Court, delivered the following:
Junomefiil
This appeal is by thelvclaiinantl’for&_Ven’ha’n?cement of
compensation awaiedefc’, by the vTri’ot’11a.al.
2. As there in filing the
appeal, an condoning the said
aeiewstg i l
3. offending Vehicle though
entered llappearancellcn 7–8–1O and took time to file
– ggobjfectiotis, faillefldwto file objections in spite of granting
the appeal is considered both on the
d.e1ayv’asV’i;vel1 as on merits
.. ll ‘=—-‘l’he Tribunal by impugned judgment and award
2~»1-0’7 awarded compensation of Rs.60.000/- with
interest at 6% pa. for the following injuries :
«£335
i) Left lower limb on above knee POP case — on
removal lacerated sutured wound of 10cm
length on posterior aspect of left thigh.
ii) Sutured wound over the left joint 2 cm over
left.
iii) Sutured Wound over lateral malleio_’;;1s,’_’ r- ”
iv) Lacerated sutured wound
on right arm.
Clinically tear of right
X–ray examination disClose–drno fraC~ture_. V
5. The claimant nlade”applicatlioiivfor; securing
Certified copy of award Of tht?
Tribunal on ten months
and secured “day and filed this appeal on
l4–1O–OQ.._4i§he..V aft.er’Aor1e:_”.year one month from the date of
the “cop_y_.__» In the affidavit filed in support of
‘ ;de1ayv._applie’ation, it is stated, the appellant is not able
“to””n1ovev-Vftiduie to accidental injuries and later on, her
hulsbaizidv fell ill and even today he is under treatment
A n_for’~«_ill–health and therefore, she could not present this
appeal in time.
6. The injuries sustained by the claimant do not
disclose, she was bedridden and was prevented from
moving out. Regarding 1’ll-health of her husband, no
documents are produced along with the app1icatl.oin..’for
condoning an inordinate delay of 985
there is no ground much less, suffi_cient”c’a”us;e is ~
for condoning an inordinate delgay’:’_A_o§If385
the appeal.
7. To know whether therevlljis._sco’pe.hfor– enhancement,
I have examined The claimant
had sustained’ the in a road
traffic on” 18-7-02, for which a sum of
Rs.6O,O’GOul/A –. which is close to just and
re’-asonabie coi’np_ensation
appeal is dismissed both on the
” ground delay as Well as on merits.
it .. dill’-tlohvorder as to costs.
sa/…
Judge
-FVmgn*