High Court Karnataka High Court

H Hanumanthareddy S/O Thippaiah vs Syed Rafiq Ahamed on 1 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
H Hanumanthareddy S/O Thippaiah vs Syed Rafiq Ahamed on 1 August, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN $33 HIGH C08RT OF Kaansmaxa am BAsasLékfi'_
DATED TEIS was 1"'nAx er AnGUsw{3%§§§C' " '
was fiON'BLE am. Jusrxég a5£;'fiAfiéfifi§&Ef._*; 
Vfifig   . _ ,. L.

TKE HON'BLE MKS. Ju§f§§E_$.§;"fi§fi3RA@Hxa

aw 

-L

BETWEEN:

K . 2- . Eian1;rna:3.jt}ié;x'§2dci3f %&si,<¢. -- "
Th1ppa1ah,,6S year3;}A' fir 3
Rfat n.Ha,4eég, r:sa1e*§pta;

Did RT¢*QfEmce€Raad4' 'W
MECi$lQck;"3*_Cxo£$§W

18"' Maia , ' Kuvéizgunagmi ,,
aavanagere.' "< *.'*" APEELLANT
'gay Advgcate smm.K.Ha;1na for

' * sxi;s,$.vgnxata Reédy}

 3.   sfo
Z 'Eyed Ismaiil, major,
'~-..§E;'o_v't.221, rI.R.squa.re, Indian
Mutual Buiiding, fiuhmnpet Rcaci,
Bangalorewz.
By its Branch Managax, .. RESPQ!~$'IJEH"iFS



3

(Advocate Sx.:i..K.Sureah for R-2} _ __
(R--1 . . Notice dispensaci with} 

mm M.F.A. is filed u;;g1e;+:T%%sa¢;%;«:3;;; 

Act against the judgnent; and award datéd V3'1..'.'».2002 

passed 3.32 mm 949,193 on "2:1:£.---~._£'.s.1é.-v- of. the t;':;£*;:*-:i...}.W»3!2t:14;,¢a
{Sr.Dn.) Se Adm. fififif, Iv£axsi'm.,1gir1;-._§:arV'tly.» allowing
the claim petxtion for c<51"§pC-.'-£'1}3a'f';,i.3;.':-'.|I1_ and seeking

enhancemezat ef c4a:rg:ge2s,sa.?ti'rJii'.'A 
This Appeal is '  ;'on_ ";Evi:.;'  --adm1.ssi-an this
day, z~:.m;-*».n_n..=:.z*:n«¥..na. J. c!a_J,,i.'ta*e,~::*-$9121..Vt1z'=;=é'vVf:.%l.};r.$~:-11:29:

  -I %¢n%.<;i~:§_r:§

= :.'-,aW listed for adrnissicn,
with tiia z:oV:t:xse;x'::t'.i_Lj~.«v,$f'-._ E;mzi21$e.1. on best}; sides, it is

izaarci finaimy. . _ 

 T1i£,:s faigpeal is filed by the 1n3u:ed---c::.1.a.:.rnanT 1;

 1*:é.~.'§..::g' A »§ii..s"-5%;-t.is£1ed with the judgment and award

pa§.*--_a _ed  :e:o.949/3.993 dated 31.55.2392 by mew,

" - ' 4. _ _' ' -;Madhu§j9i.;fi. .

_' ' '££'}ze relevant facts of the case axa that on

" *15.6.1993 at about 3 a..m. clainmsst was traveiling

in a bug bearing No.I€1~'z. G§---«l088 from Ifiavanagere to

fix,»



3

Bangalore as a gassenger when it was." 'éprotteééing

rscear Seebi forest at dashed againait' 

bearing 1~:o.MH 25-7379 wh1c:h.:wL.a*..pa.5rI:e;¢V;i'Ars:Vé:; "the. 'mast. 

of the read and as a res11.7£.i'i:.¢  ~   
claimant suffered   Vwarr
shifted to Govexnmgnt  at.'  and from
there referrad t<:¥   Bangalore for
finrthex treatment.   atated that he
has spent 2_'::é$:;é§ , 9:66;}-"  treatment.

'1'hereforéau   ¢g;_aV"1"m petition see3<:::.'ng

<:ca:<@eé1:sa_t.i.¢5:iv."_...V¢}§r:t  head.s.. Before the
tribuné.2._,"  "i;n "rJesjg:ect of 1" respondent-the

dx.1′.*;e.*x_ of ut21£’=:’ ‘0f.fé’:”‘1d..’i..I1§’ vehicle was ciisznissad while

-A $3″ 3″? resfiéééents were p.3.a.c;:en :

~~1.”;. Whether the clajznant has pxeved that the

accident which occurred on 3.5.6.1993 at
about 3 31.11:. on ma-4 near See}:-.1. Forest was
due ta the rash and negligent drivgng of
the bus bearing I~I.KA 04–1088 by its
drxvex?

2. Whether the claizrant sustained injurxes in
the accident and he is ent:i.tJ.ec1 for

fis-

4

campéasation and if so, ta what amfifint and
fra wha? v» V x

3. To what Order?

in support of his case, claimant» gm£<La1ngéi£ "

examaned as yw–1 and one Dx§A.¥W$;S£géxanfih"a3aEE%2 =

and got marked E5.9–1 to 338:_ The txi§fig$1;;$££§z
nothing that he had suffékéfi'ml£ifi@é fr$;t;re5 anfi
taking into cansidéxatiéfiflfifié-étgfienéfi"5% ?W–2 the
dactcr, granted cam§é$§#ti§h_§f §$f1,6G,GOGf~ with

intexest at as p.a; fpém tfié agté bf claim petitian

till thé"é#te $£'£eai;za£i6fi. Not being satisfied

with %hé_sazd<fiudg@m£,and awaxa the claimant has

preferre§%#h£$ apfifiéi seeking enhancement.

4._§ WE. ha§e»H§ea:d the iearned counsel for the

V a§§éli#@: -?hd the counsel £9; zmd respondant

“;n5uiandg ¢mpany and perused the evidence on

record;’. ¥

2*xS(*_ Tie only peint that axiges for cur

hcohkidaratian is as to whether the campensation

u””#waxaed.by the tribunai requires to be enhanaed?

&

5}

6. on perusal of the pleadings and “.2-…«1:

is noteé that the appellant had _§1i£§ereer,1993 and

the nature of his injuries there was

§hf.$a;bi1ity. However, tribunal has not

these aspects and has granted a meagre

coanpengéetion. It 3.3 further seen that the

apjfiézllant has pxocimceci 32.5.9-22o to 338 which are

grescxiptiuns and bills and 3.31.?”-4 S. 5 which are

in-patient bills and other doculnents in order to

prove the nzeaiical expenses which have been incurred

3/”-

‘7

7. The aypeal is allowed in the afore,-3a:L el _téz:hi3.&.

ml .-.’.

Sd/-»
Judge

V’ ” ximaaaa