IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2181' DAY OF OCTOBER. 2910 BEFORE V '' THE I-ION! BLE MR. JUSTICE B.sREENwAsfi'GG3%rDa:_ Miscellaneous First Appeal No.,. 5908' 61"' " 'V Between Karibasappa, Age about 30 Years, , = 8/0. K. S. Basavarajappa R/at. Aloor, Post Dayfangefe _ Davangere Taluk and i)istri_cffi. } Appellant (By Adv.) Andv, .... " 1. lié, Company, 76, Bada.Vgubettu. ' 'Chitpady, _ Udilpii; -Thr: Orien"ta1«i'nsurance Co. Ltd., 'Rep"b_y its Manager, ' T. :V"«Dv'ivisi_oi:.a1 Office. '"V1;3hI1,'1'1" Prakash Building, Vf.1"<«'~" floor, Court Road, Udapi. Respondents
{By Smt. Harini Shivanand, Adv. for R2,
Notice to R1 is dispensed with)
This MFA is filed U / 8 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and award dated: 29.9.2007 passed in MVC
No. 912/2006 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge [Sr.Dn)
and Addl. MACT, Udupi, partly allowing the” Claim
petition for Compensation and seeking enhanee’n1e–nt’ of
compensation. .V _ . .V
This appeal coming on for hearin.g,..t_hisV
Court, delivered the following:
JUDGMENi*
This appeal is by for of’ V L’
compensation awarded by the .T.It’r:;bu,na1. ‘
2.. For the sake of ‘eonve11ience_’parties are referred to
as they “petition before the
Tribunal, ‘ *
3. Brief are:
, Thai ¢n juicnféoos Vdufll the cflahnant was
. it tra\te1iing””i.n a niinibus bearing registration No. KA–20–
towards Manipal near Eshwara Nagar,
Hergav___vVilVlage, the driver of the bus drove the same in a
.,rashzarn;cl negligent manner and suddenly applied brake,
‘gas a result, claimant sustained injuries. Hence, he filed
it claim petition before the MACT, Udupi, seeking
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal by
impugned judgment and award has awarded
compensation of Rs. 10,000 / ~ with interest at 8%’ A’
4. As there is no dispute regarding.j_oceurrfenccl’
accident, negligence and liability
offending vehicle, the only _point’ that for
consideration in the appeal
Whether. the at jquantum at at of
compensation awarded iby “th’e_’i’–ribunal is
just and proper” _or’f” does___1call for
enhancefrrf’/9t?;””‘ V’ W ‘
5. Afterllpllhjeariiig the’-.lVearr1edCoulisel for the parties
and perusing: olfhthe Tribunal, I am of the
View thatithe’vcompensation awarded by the Tribunal is
v justriand properlan-d ‘there is no scope for enhancement.
_ certificate Ex P 8 the claimant has
su,sltajnedc’ltW’o simple injuries. Injuries sustained and
treatraeiit taken by him are also evident from O.P.
Ex. P 5 and supported by the oral evidence of the
__clla.irnant examined as PW 1. He has not examined the
doctor regarding nature of injuries sustained by him
and disability suffered.
7. Considering the two sirnpie injuries i;1dicVated_.._in
the wound certificate the Tribunal has_.right},yV
a gioba} compensation of
80/o p.a. and there is no scope. for en_hance:rn’e’nt_._V_
8. Accordingly the appeal” i missed’ ‘ as’ devoid of
merit.
. Ed/—
Edge
