1 1. IN T}rii:L i1'iGH CO'u'i~l'}' OF KAR'NA'i'AKA AT BAIQQALQRE 1):'-'x'i'i;i) 'i'fiiS O9""'i)A':' vi' rhfikévzxk % H 'mg H(}N'Bi..i: i'vii<'..~ susmm; -- i%'%'L;3i2:f i'viiSC3£i.i.AN E-10133 FIRS1' gg:_z3gAL'r4§V24o9 <.:;» A % BETWEEN : Sri. John Saldahna, 52 SE0 Axxtlmny Saldanha Residing at Siic Nu;i 26il ; /A Anjalia, 5"' Cro$.s'B;}galgunte: k * % Baflflakme-73__. (By Sh1i:.V"B."\'I'. % V' " 1., B'; V." Push'§j§" ' 1 '$3.559 V Terrific " '*iif_a Main Road Béangafiim-.-7? 3 ' H H 'T 1 ' ' = A. The Mafiaagcr National Insuraace " - Company Limiiod [ifloddahallapura Branch ' 2 Srinivasa Market Complex 1974, Cinema Read Z APPELLANT %l 203 RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. A. M. Vmkalcah, Aadvmate for Rzmporukml 3’~T3c”.’3~”.-2T and
Rcxgsuzxdcxsi Nu! is dizsgrcuxcd with) _V
$95335?
‘i’i*n:s Mrscoiianeuus hrsi. Appcai as
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act .ag;:is:st’§1ze juiigcment. and f ”
award dated 24.6.2005 [$1 in MVC.A.N§>. ’52l.2i’–20€Ii..Lun.,T.£ha
file of the Member, Meter Accidéc.nt£:._ [Claim–S, . Tribuzgfl, X
fiuidiiimnal Judge, Court of S1n;ai§.4Cuus£%:-3, Nay” L.
16, partly allowing the claim petitégfi ft)!’ ccixnpenssa_’t_ici£;:v;1i2fi etc.
This appeal havinggijpen “zmii}t:uming on
flat ptonounoememi: of da3:;%:ne Court delivared the
fb!!awingt-
J the appellant and the re:spundenL
V km: had claimed uumpca:-saiicm beibns the
Claims Tribunal on aeumui of injuiics that he
‘ H ” ‘LA as a result ufa rnoiut awcideni invuiving a I,-nuzinr and
iwfi-whmicr lhai he was riding.
E
The Tribunal having awarded Rs.30,00(}i-
suffering, R:-5.] 5,000:’- towards rrmaiia.-.213 ‘R_$.~
inwards loss of iacomc during T
of fuiun: earning, ibis is
enhancement oflhos same.
3. The mzsgmafing as the award of
not show any
infinni£y,._h:1 awarded inwards pain and
is faidy adequate. Insufiir as
medical axiaené-:63 after taking ink) mammal the
= cmpiuycr of the appciiam, 2 sum oi’
‘ gm} fair.
as loss of immnc during ireairncsnt and But of
x V’ or capacity are conwmed, the appellant has
pmdtwc ducument-5 in support uf his earnings and the
«if his duties. The tribunal, however, having awarded
Q
Rs.l5,000f- inwards loss of income during . i53§t)
be said in be unfiasl.
5. The medicai pmamm %
whoici-body disabiiity to the AiVi}’–?{§,’ ¢;n’i”
cvidesazc as to the nuiuzté ‘his liw loss
am he would suflisr an the tribunal!
having of Rs.i5,000;’.
towards tfiznmsi aim he mi-d to be
unjust Rs.i5,0G0.r’- towards
fuiurt: loss
“”” H is aiiuwed and the Wife-nit is held
$fliiA§.¥Uf5,_iV”V.§1:}’VA uumptsnsaiiun of Rs.l5,000i- with
ifiimusl £S9ké:’§§¢f a1nnum from {he duh: uf claim {iii the dais 05′
Sdf-Q
Iudgé