IN THE HIGEI COITRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED Tms THE 25TH DAY or AUGUST. 2010
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENw;{sE ieoiiinzif
Miscellaneous First Apnea}-N'o;'*94_$5.0 >1' A'
Between
Govinda
S /0 Gopaiachari
Aged about 42. Years _4 V
R/o. Door No.4:2.--,Y2nCi. _
Kurubarahalli Sidchrtha Nagaf' __
MYSore. . ' " I «.
2 " . Appellant
(By Sm-."Mah3enf€Svh Hosmath, Adv.)
1.
Andam ‘ ” V’
S / 0″ Late, J ava1{aiaIj1.’e’
A. -Aged £ii:1ou’i;~33 years
R/’0. Dooi*”No_,___1=36, 4th Cross
Iét Stage, Rajendra Nagar
V’ ” Myso1’«f:.° ..
‘[D’rfi.Vér.i0f:Goods Auto bearing
” * Reg.7jNo*. KA~10/1 169)
2. Kenologowda
S/-0′ Thimmegowda
” “»Aged about 35 years.
V’ -Aflangadhahosahalli Village
H. D. Kote Taluk, I-iampapura I-Iobli
Mysore District.
[Owner of Goods Auto bearing
%’
Reg. No.KA- 10/1169)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
N0.441314.~ 2nd floor,
Chamaraja Double Road,
Near Ramaswamy Circle
Mysore.
_ v_uR£:sp.o’ndento.e u *
[By Sri. M. Arun Ponnappa, R, 4′ X,
R1 &R.2 are served) ” . ”
This MFA filed U/s”ii.Ez:3{c1) (if Ac: agar-a the?’
judgment and award dated:”=3.3.2008’~passedg in MVC =
No. 411/2006 on theme smog Pi’esiding”‘Officer, Fast
Track Court-IV, Meinlofer, ‘.Ad,d1. ” Mysore, partly ‘
allowing the claim petition’ for~ii”-compensation and
seeking enhancemenftof rjompeVnsa_t;iori;:7′
This on iifders, this day, the ‘
Court, de3’ive_t”ed”f1*1e.foiEcvs}1ng:
appe’al”‘v_ is by the claimant, seeking
er;i3ti”:2’a.1’:4.Ae.¢;-Ixient “‘o”f”””compensation awarded by the
2. 2 Brieffacts of the case are:
x That on 25.08.2005 when the claimant was
ivalking on the road along with his wife behind JSS
wcoilege in Siddartha Nagar a Goods Autorickshaw
%’
bearing registration No.KA.10/1169 came in a rash and I
negligent manner and dashed against him as a”‘–resu1t
he sustained grievous injuries. Hence he a
petition before MACT, Mysore seeking ¢gxf¢§e1:sa[£:§sn
Rs.7,15,000/- and the Triiotinal ?._has.:_’:
compensation of Rs.79,30>O/_– vvith:i–nterest’.;atv”6%V it
3. As there is no dispAuteA”‘regarding’occiirrence of
accident, negligencekand insurer of
offending vehi’cl__e, ‘ remains for
consideration ” Q V’
1 _’ it i”vl’j*.>.’_1f:eti71er-thepornpensation awarded by
“the 4T1*ibiinV’a1. and reasonable or does it
cail for enhancernent?
uA.fter hearingA:’the learned Counsel appearing for
r partiesyand perusing the judgment and award of the
..I of the View that the compensation
the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, it
2 xis”Qn the lower side and therefore it is deserved to be
V’ enhanced.
fir