K G Lokesh vs The Manager on 8 December, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TEES THE 8'1" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTECE s. ABDUL NAZEERM. j

~.r

MESCELLANEOUS FERST APPEAL NO. 6161 /2o_1«-:1. (11/1:\,.j.i';~--  1*' 

BETWEEN :

K.C'r. Lokesh
S/0. Gurldegowda
Aged about 32 years

Kanchanayakanahalli

Shanthigrama Hobli   A  '   
Hassan Taluk & Dist.   _  g_' 1  .".~.1,_APPEL1.ANT
(By Sri. Girish B. BaEadareVV--,V--A_dv. }- A D

AND

1 The Managef' . 4' 

The Unified lndvia 11-"1su1*ance Co. Ltd.
.Ȣ3.V;'~Bu11ding1V _
A 1. B.M; Road .. _____ ..
  

2 r '1-.VDHeIr1s[::ha1;1'dra
A  S/ Q. .R:x1.1geg0wd21
"Major" "
Kané:;11anayakanahe1111

D 'A  Shéhzthigrama Hobli

4"Hassa11 Taluk & Dist.  REISPONDENTS

'  (135: Sri. A. Ravishar1ka1', Adv. fo1'R1



Notice to R2 dispensed with}

This MFA is filed u/s.17'3(1) of MV Act against the
judgment and award dated 15.9.2009 in M.V.__C.

No.853/2008 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.} 

Addl. MACT, Hassan.

This appeal coming on for admission th_i_s'"'day:.:_i'~the T

court delivered the following:    _--

JUDGMEE
This appeal is directed 
award in MVC No.853/2vO'O.8fl dated 'ithsjfievoos on"the"V§file of
the Principal Civil Judge  MACT,

Hassan. The appel'ldg1*i1vWé:'s the_:'Ve1ain1~d;1tg'ldeiohe the Tribunal

and the i'espo11deiits'-»vvere'"th.e*--owner and the insurer of the

offending veh.iCle,. There. i's,n_.'o dispute as to the occurrence

."~."()f th»e-ipaeeident Ha"1'1d__thev liability of the first respondent ~--

lvlnsixrsnee’Conipany to pay compensation. The claimant.

appeal seeking enhancement of

— e0111pens3.ti.oii.

2. l have heard the learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the evidence let in by the claimant before the

court below.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant :_.

the claimant had suffered fracture to the nasal”‘bo};»§.*~,,/::H’e

further submits that the evidence let bythie elairnant” 3 .«

not been properly app1’eCiatedV’dlb3I_.Vthedcolurtp
court below has awarded a total
is on lower side. Learned_..l:Cou’nse_lA _appellant has
made available the evict.-ancie as also

docurnents referred to =;n”~the_ evidence of the claimant

before tihecourt ‘– —

«V V” ?”C)n”t1rie otherlhand, learned Counsel appearing for

_resip.o’1:.denitarlnsuralice Company has sought to justify

the ugn dgrnent and award.

5. I have carefully considered the argurnents of the
learned Counsel for the parties made at the Bar and

perused the records.

6. It. is evident from the wound certificate 1-

that the claimant; has suffered fractureflof is

also clear that the claimant had sus_i.aine«;}f?

face, which is grievous in nature; abrasion ‘over tzhe’ and
right side of the hand. The Court ;1»–.v;{r:i’éc1 sum
of €10,000/~ towards paind-/1nd’_d suffer’i.11gl”which is on the

lower side. The award of (:.oII.1.i3F:nsat:E.pori.’on”tl’ie–‘other heads

is also inadeq_ua1le_;vVflpairing’reappreeiated the entire evidence
on record,”I__an_1 oi7.V_tl’i–e’–view””i;’:1ai. it is just and proper to

award -sum of l’x’),.v’L’)O(.’)-/~«zwith interest at 6% per annum

towards E~fionipensai.ion” in addition to what: has been

‘awarded ‘Court. below.

V~1~n_l”ji:.he result, the appeal succeeds and it is

étceordingl}? allowed in part. The respondent–Ir1surance

is directed to deposit. a sum of ?,i0,000/- in

ii

iii

addii:io’r1 to what has been awarded by the court below with
interest at 6% per amiuin from the date of the appiication

till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks frQ_m

the date of receipt. of 21 Copy of this order. The appe1Ea’1’1i_:

permitted to withdraw the amount on such

Costs. _

Cs