I'. 1 - Ill mm men comer orj-Iunnarnu A'-I' BAIIGALORE . mun nus 11-m my on MARCH-2003 Jrmn Homsm nm..ma11cn-3.9. nsifiwy : ' ' & Kempcflowda, SIo.late_ Thammaiah, ' . ' - Aged about 32 years, Ha1'iharVil]age,__ SathanurHob1i,. (By Smt.B,I;.:';ts]1§ :Adv.j.: if; V M A AAAA S] o".--Ho_nne Gowda; ~ ._ ._ Gundapura V:'llage,. ' H_a]agu_1"*u.L Ha-bli_--.. " Tq. V_ Mandjra Dist. ! (70.v§?ner..%of the' bus.---. * 'A C N9.CNG.9'720).. I Maj er. . l1:isu1ance_Co. Ltd., Flgaorgf. Gpp: K.E.B.0flicc, A ¥ f M..C.Boa_d, Mandya. L tmsponnmlral 5 'respondents-1 as 2 are" served but unmprcsentcd)
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
– gAct against ‘the Judgm_ent_ and ¥Awa1d dated
% 05-.0-1.2006 passed in MVC 110.914/2000′ on the-file ofthe Civil
Judge (S1?.Dn.), .MAC’I’., Maddur, partly. the claim
…2_
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
This Appeal coming on for admission, this day…
delivered the following: g’ .4
1. Heard the learned counsel foi’ 3 ‘
2. This is an appeal
enhancement of compensation. 1.
3. On O8.O£’3_.A19″99, g…..mng in a bullock
cart from Helmet with an accident
when a negligent manner by
its dfi;irer_ and dashed against the bullock
cart. the claimant suflered injuries
one of the at the spot. The claimant moved
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
‘V-compensation. I-le examined himself as P.W.1
thelloctor by name Mariswamy was examined as P.W.4.
ggExs.l7’~1_.it’to Ex.P18 were produced and marked. The Tribunal
‘cl,nhbed together three claims arising out of the same accident
___ and recorded common evidence.
3%
…3_.
4. Having held that the accident occurred due to the
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the-pprivate
bus, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- as
for the personal injuries suffered by the
accident. It is the case of the claimant. ..;suppo_1jted.h ; it
the Doctor who has been it
dislocation of the right she spphca Ibr a
treatment. Though the he was an
inpatient for 10 days, vpnoduced by him to
show that he The Doctor has
stated that shhysicai disability of 5%
right ankle joint. The
cla1Inan’ the medical bills.
5. V _ _v As version he was eaming Rs.2,000/–
bya agricultural work. In the face of the
itecord, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in
“st sf’t:isls’3o,ooo/–. Though the Tribunal has awarded only
towards pain and sujfering. the fact that a sum of
it ~ Rs«..20,V(s)0O[- is awarded towards alleged permanent disability
to be kept in mind. In fact, there is no material to
V establish that such a permanent physical disability was
suffered by the claimant. In that view of the matter, though a
{W
meagre amount is awarded towards pain and suffering. in View
of the award made in a sum of Rs.20,000/§.~=.__towan_1s
permanent physical disability, I do not consider .ij’.–.i.a fit
case for enhancement of compensation.
income, a sum of Rs.2,000[- is
circumstances keeping in mmd’ .n::iavi-mi c– 15, ”
dislocation of the joint is ‘Though no
medical bills were the-.._ awarded
-Rs.3,000/- towards in my} view,
the amount a\}E_’ii.;’t__1ed it-i of Rs.30,000./ —
is fair and 1″i’1z1e ow: iflierefom being devoid of
merits i
Sd/-‘
Judge