MFAIZSSWZOG6
IN THE men COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13': DAY OF JUNE 2009
BEFORE
THE HOIPBLE DR. JUSTICE K.naAKT§;Av};'r$Ai.§ * K
MZSCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALmNC}.«1'_23_5?f .(M5J)
BETWEEN: " "
K2131. Shn1thi.'I'.
Since minor represented by her father,' _
P.Cr.'l'ukrappa, .
S] o.Gop11_, '
Aged about 48 years, T A
Head Constabic, State Inte11ViV_g_é11eVe:, _ ; V
Clhikmagaiur Disiiti(,t,_V~' =i " A Appellant.
._ Sm'. Shctty,
W] o.Lat,e Srii_1§va:}3Shetty,
' Suhhas Road,"
.Koppa;"
- i .. ' Chikmagézlxir District.
'§.1yvn::r_pf{iie Car FLA 18 MS 6322
"'33?/'s;"Uni£eci India Assurance
Company Limited,
.. Road, Chikxnagaiur -~ 57'? 101.
V By its "Manager. Respondents.
(R~ 1 served, but unrvzpresented)
(By 811?. P.B.Raju, Adv., for R-2)
MFAi2357:’20G6
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is files under Section 173(1) of
Indian Motor Vehicles Act against the Judment and awaxtl dated:
O7~08-2006 passed in MVC No.07] 2004 on the file of the E’rl,l).is%rict
Judge as member MACT, Chflcxnagaiur, partly allowing. L-
petition for Compensation and seeking e11I:1a11.oexAiicfrj*::s -.01?»
compensation.
This Appeal coming on for hearing t}.ilis»V{isy,._tl1_e
the following: A. ‘ V ‘
mnosnmsfr
The appellant/claimant is befofe Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles;.__.A’ct, eneaocement of
C0mpCI1SatiOIl:__iI1_ ‘ on the file of Addl. District
Judge] MAST ” l’ V.
Coof1se}——«ior the appellant submits that the
about I 1 years sustained grievous injury in
acoieleot; Iii Vwopds, she sustained fracture of left temporal
_vT}.3_(_).I4ltl,V.CXtI’3l’ Vhaezzsatoma and abrasion over left fiinna of ear.
C as in–pa&3:1t in Kasturba Hospital from 26.10.2003
and spent huge amount of Rs.30,000[ — towards medisal
v . But the Tfibunai has awarded adequate compensation.
MFA123§7f2€}06
3. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company
submits that the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and
there is no good ground to enhance compensation. _ ._L ._’
4. Ex.P–38 is the photograph of the viefim–§’r!§’_:aho1irs..
around the he temporal region. The Meelicai 119; eimee
examined to establish that there is I
keeping in View the nature of in}:13:ties__ sustained b3=.’ti1eA
a mum’ er and she was treated as inipanent Hospital at
Manipa}, reasonable eoakpensation
towards thé the claimant is entifled for
compensaiion as I
(if a1;dsufren;ug Rs. 25,0eo»~ee
‘ expenses Rs. 20,000~–0O
H Z and attendant ehaxges
and special diet expenses Rs. 10,000-()9
-f
” ‘ivy Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,(}%–()()
37,(){}O–0O
MFA123§7:’2906
Thus, the claimant is entitled for additionai compensation of
Rs.68,0%»–O{).
S. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed
appellant] claimant is cntitied for addifionai.’ ” “of
Rs.68,0{)0/ –. Accoxdingly, -the
costs.
Respondent N0.2/§i1SiiA.’-‘.éi1’.(§C directed to deposit
the additional <:om.pe3;1_satit)I1 .._ -'Tribunal within 3
months
The T:ib1iI:.a1 is 5: appropzriate orders regard Bank
Fixed Dcp§éit~ V v_ I
Sd/"'*
39599