~ 1 PA
111 Inc: Hififi "$53? 9?' ¥.A.l'..l'.'."--'.""'" El '>753-"T51 ' :
'I'lI 11113 '
QIXIQGT' ugh!-r-_I-an-1-use;--1..
DATED THIS TI-IE End EAj"0F- E66"
EEI«*o12E E 2 i
THE HON'BLE MEJUSTIEE MOHAij¢.1§EI§EY' f E
1v1.E,A.No. 55?%4%12o05%
-- -------- .--o
LAKsHM1E~AEA.'-§APr>A ;: .
s/o LATE Emuimsrappa EV ,-- _ V
AGED A3013?' 52'wYEAS;.EA '
NO.1,__5TH.V('.'.R'QSS 3 ~
L.N';PUl%;%!¥§, "9?
BANGALORE,
-. -._.._'--.
ii
' Sf--O?=MUNIYAPP
"1f_'!'§.i.«i'J1'11'v51'vi:"1 TEMPLE STREET
,, "V1JlPURA'I'OWN
E _ E' DEVANAHALLI
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
153."
M SHANKAR
S/0 PMALIGAPPA
AGE'.-D ABOUT 3:; YEARS
GANDHI c:.How1<
K:'sL£\B'1'R:'s\v'ESHWARA TEMPLE ....
VIJIPURA, A I
BANGALORE ra-Uva. Di"'T'
msuaance so L.o *
2ND FLOOR, THAKKUR COMPLEX "
OD
S.Ci.T.'OAf), VESHWANT-HAPUR
BANGALORE 560 022
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
{av S-ri : S 3 HMM AD¥'--.FGR R.
THES :'v'iI-'A -1.-ED tags F
THE JUDGMENT AND"~..AW.ARD DATE ,:2o.4.o5 P SSED IN
MVC No. 116101 ON 'ii-:1i;E} ('J't'3"_t?RL. Ci'v'IL JUDGE,
(SRDN), MAGT-IIIV,_V_ " .,VBA_NGAL'ORSj __ RURAL orsqz,
BANGALORE}; .PAm'1.Y o AL1,tm.'--ING- '§'HE CLAIM PETITION
FOR GOM:PEN;~SATION Mm "SEE?-E!N_(§* EN]-IANCMEENT OF
COMPE1'ISfsTI(}_N';. ~ * V
?3 " as
EARING, THIS
_ .. <_3o.r9i:.:§G'oo.I§_F($R FINAL H
F ' ' G:
in
am, THE rfiourfzr -oLLov'm
- --. L The employed as a Forester by
. V. " of aggrieved by the judgment and
" eager; 20.4.2005 pa._..«.=.-.«.1 11- MVC 1 1:»,/2001 of the
""Moto1' -Accident ciaims "i'ri'ouna1--III, Barr-'-re
.. , p_.Distr'ict;, Bangalore, (for short the 'MAC'I"), has preferred
V' t«1é1i-.3 appeal for enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant claiming to be a Forester in the
services of State of Karnatakaiieaid to have suffered
M
M 1
ah
12.10.2000
involving E11ot01’Vehie1e. _TI1e—
consideled the medical evide1ice,:;n1esre ‘appI:”01)fi$ite13é,e_tl1e
wound certificate Ex.P5’,t_ti1e
{1i%l..,..1g tha- appellejzt was .,_i;’1Q:itie11t from
towards Uhdoubtedly, out of
the eight tl1ef1_11_’m”‘V1V’elatio11 to fracture of
the ” 56310, were opined to be
V’ VT”t,.1a,V%’;=iet=.r’ 0!’ the ..1atte1*, e_1,1_h_a_n_I1_2 the
v-‘:0.j1§l\’3.9¥.5€311;ableAA « PTOPB1′. The MACT awarded
as medical expenses, Rs. 1,200/~ as
charges and Rs.3,000/- towards Food,
V 2 epizlion enhancing the compensation i’1’om Rs.3,000;’ — ‘0
‘101.h’iiSl”‘fiII€i1t and ….,.nemrt:-3-…-.- c…=’-,-xges In my
5.
Rs.5,000/– for food, nutrition and t:ra11spo1’t’.atio:n
charges, in the circumstances is just and reasonable. h
,3 .
Q 111 1 .l.l.D1\.lLd. ¢:l.u.|.u 1.
of the learned counsel for the M 7. it
fell in error in not awarding fo£’f-los:se of
.’.”L’2?rp» *v’-
amenities of life. PW–2, §t’F.Ye11l’ tesh,
.,.1..sI_..t_.1– _p-Lied t___.t. tl1e_appe1la11t’suife1’e¥:l disability
due to the iiijtifies; of this
witness doeshot disclose _eliCi’V_£iI1Vg,./’ any lI1CI’l1]1l11alIl11g
state1ne1it”‘ ” the This oral
testi1:noi1ry5offithe..r1ii’ection of establishing the
“efir-afiev’ ._ ‘pg:-.r;..i.i..,.i’.i’a.__d’it,:Q_il_iy since the appellant is
unabieip chew and ii”‘S i’ec-‘errant mtazence
1i.i::a:1ache’;’«tl1at View of the matter, t.he appellant
V to endure the discomfort, frustration for the
his life, entitling him’ to compensation of
I-In
life:
R-3.1% ‘M0,’ = 1.01′ loss of .._.m”..11i_1es
4. The contention that the appellant is entitled to
eomwiisataon AOI’ less o. …I.-.1..- ea.rn._i._g Lamcity due to
disalaility is rejected. i say so because adniittedlr “ea
-‘”””ua1’-“it is -‘”1 “Hi”: “c
P 3
e111pIoyment is tCI’l11’i11atBd dL_1§:»_to fl1e”‘i11ju1’ies “11u1’4
there dimi11io11 in the salary T .. ii’
In the result, ” T The
impugned Judg1neif§t- ._a11(i V I S enhancing
the colllpensatiorl Rs.76,200/- and