IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALGRE
DATED THIS THE 2.3)?" 'BAY OF MAY 2513.
BEFGRE
THE HGWBLE MREUSTECE SUBHASH B.13«C§5i~~--'.'_j ' __'_ '.j'
BETWEEN:
H.R.Bhuvane$h
S/0 Rangaswamaiah
Aged about 26 years
Ujjagaliu Viliage
Magadi Taiuk.
Katya Pest, Kasaba Hobfi ' ;
Bangalore Rura§ Dist. " L __ .. APPELLANT
(By Sri.Prakasj?'§4_;.tfi:%..;»;_:ii;*_:} __:' C
AND: 1111 4 V
1, Shahkar Te'3ek?'.tV:i'2.} % _'
S/0 La.}--.Ranka .ApA3 Etrxjients
4?" -FiLQ0r,":'f.h §'§v€}1Ck '
,_"Lé3EbaghV Roatig .j8__af:gaE0re
V1"'*Thev._Reg'§.:§E1a_§ Gfficer
~..T-Thr.~:v.v¥\$«9§.é&1 }:'m;f.:~a Assurance Ce, Lté",
thin? BL;---i%éI%ng Amex,
'--résiissétm Elzeagf
Ba.rs§a¥ore --~2?'. .. RESP®NDEN'?S
A _{§::;':;r:';'§«s.;2;sh{:k Kzsmazj, flicks. ssr R1;
__ "'i::3£"'¥"é§:g§'"i§§'"§i"§§ Shivanandg Adv. fa? R2}
T'f°::s i*~«'LFA. is fiieé ands? Sssiém :?3{3.,) sf I'-W fiat
" aga§ns% the j¥.i§§E'%'E€§%§ am avzsayd éaieé 28§$é.2§{}'? gaggeé in
M}2§§ELLANEQU§ F~'IR§T APF'EAL N0.2415',.._{;2I_g0VgA.§*_;r»a v} ' K
:
Ix)
s
MVC Ne.8009/2006 cm the We 0:' 14"' Additionei mdge; Court
of Smali Causes, Member, MACT, Bangaiore City; SCCH-10,
parfiy aiiowing the Ciaim petition for cempensatien and
seeking enhancement of cempensatien. .-
This Aepeaé coming on for admission this day
eleiivered the following:
JUDGMENT
, the “CQ_L}r.t
This is a <.:Eaimant's appeal svee'kin:_:; e%4nhe'e"ce'me:w.ti't.037.
compensation in respect of the"1'.Vjtz«:itgA':9t11ert1't_ ' e73?,\('V«3!"{:§\\;\._,,_.AiE%'~
M.V.C.N0.8009/2007 dated 28.e'.:j0e.? otfthe' fi§ve.:e't7eM'.'A;'C.T, * A
Court 01' Smat! causes, Ban,g1.alereV.C-itxfi.
2. Ciaimant seught Rs.3.0G Eekhs
for the injuries” accident that
occurred on be the basis of the
evidence of R.s.46,000/~
with intereet’. ”
the quantum 0? Compensation
Vevyaridede :s§;v’t~heff”:*i_%:una!, the ciaimant is in appeal befere this
V Ceuftf V
n 4. .’Ex:i’i:§ence or: record discieses that the ciaimaet
4’$L;§’ff?’3’f’z’?.d_.:”5 injuries. He was mwpetéent free: Z?.9.2£3$§ te
VA ‘::2_,.,§..E25C?§§ The injuries ere simeie ie nature Hewever; they
‘ ‘~-«reey eeese eieftgeremeet eeti eeferéeétgz. it is eteteé tee?”
2:.)
:
claimant has spent Rs.5€3{{)GO/– for medicai expenses and. has
produced the medicai biiis to the tune of Re.3§;O0_{3,./of;-.e_}¥’~E3e
Tribune? has reduced the compensation onfy
that the biiis are exorbitant and hes’»_ewa:oo’ed—-i:e,§;e:fe_ of ‘V
Rs.15,ooo,/- on that heao. When thebugs.5:re.:§o.::”odi§;§e.:¢eeo_7
there is no reason to reduce'[_%:-hoe comoense’§é’oA:}=..toVw.erdAs
medécafi expenditure. However, V_’_c_ifie.. ;:i-e_vi_»ma}€t;«–eio:eofiitiefi for
additionaf sum of “tvc>’$gee’r”:*i»»s conveyance,
nourishment. Towards; %oss”‘::iVnCo;je.oe”Ltreatment and
amenitjes, the tower side, I
find that i:E}__e__V:Vi’aV~f.rfi’aV:i?;:V_:e–g»e’i:oeVL;* for another sum of
28,000/-.:’–.__In._ is entitied for a sum of
Rs§35,OO0/’éw§tie1 én’tere.€:gt..o’ve4fV.’and above the compensation
_ewardee{ ‘b\[*.th€ T%%b_ohei. V.
accordingiy ailowed in part.
Sfifé
§E§§E
