High Court Karnataka High Court

Parameshwar S/O Shivaraya … vs J Nagaraj S/O Jayaram on 23 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Parameshwar S/O Shivaraya … vs J Nagaraj S/O Jayaram on 23 September, 2008
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
.uuuu Ur RFIKNAIRKA HIGH COURT KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGi~¥ COURT OF KARNATAKA HBG!-3 COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGI

INTHE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. ~  fjy.  

CIRCUIT amen AT GULf5e'iRG5  I  '  ' ' V %

DATED '11-i1s'r1--IE 23199 my oEsm*fE§&BER  Q'  

BEFORE  _
THE I-ION'BLE Dr. Jtxafrzaa I+:'.i§§1Ai:§f}§A2zATsA:;A 
M.F.A.No.87O_1    

BETWEEN: 
Parameshwar,   

S/o Shivaraya  ?;__  "

Age:43 Years; """  'T1: '

Occ: Ag1'icuIim~c,_ _ V

Rio New  '

Indi--'I'a1u1-I,  .   J 

Bijapur Dislrrict.  * V    Appellant

AN'i3__: '

 1. JNaga.'raj, ' 
 A"'S']o Jayaram, .~ ~
 Major;  A
" ~  'BusiI1c§»'3_,__ 1'
; -8/9VEji}}'£.iI'§,
 '--,1'*.C;mss_, 
 Kuttay-aeppa Garden,
 _'  ':Vivclm.a3gar,
'  V  Ba3;g£i1bre--560 047.

'The National Insurance Co. I.1:d.,

HQIH VXVLVNHVX 50 1.315103) H9]!-1 V)§VJ.VN8V)l JO Lanna I-I!-'II!-I \n£\ii'H'lu)lH'\I .ln nlnnfi unlu 'I-l'\.EI-Ill-I'lLl\lH'\.I an nu-an-\ ur.-nu Huwn-n.muu .:n

i'Il!'If"



Summons sewed thmugh
The Branch Manager,
Nafional Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Bfiapur Branch,
Bijapur--586 101.

3. I-lanumanth,

S/0 Chandrappa Hakki,

Age: Major,

Business,

R[o Mavinahalli,  "

Indi-Taiuk, 

Bijapur Distric_t,..  4' 52:':  . "

4. The Branch ikiaiuigcr, 3  V '
New India'VA.§éu.ra nce  Ltd,;"
Bijapm-586 101.   " " Respondents

(By Sri M Pa1aniyappa1it, Adv’;.1.»L tbr R-1,

By Sri Sanjay”~M Joshi, Adv;,>’fi)r R~2,

By S1’if3<"'L'_ Nadagquda, Adv., for R-4,

-” 2 R-3 is ,_ but iin–.tJc§1xescnted)

H ” First Appeal is fibd under Section 173(1)

V Vv of the'”Motc:’rVe’1’1icles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award
‘-7.j’:,g4.c__1a:ed 22.32005 passed in MVC No.1171/2001 on the file of the
Judge (st. Dim), Member, MAC’T–VII, Bijapur, partly
the claim petition for compensation and seeking

cnhzinccmcnt of compensation.

-wunl vr nrusvlnlntui nlus-I (..UURIA §)lf_: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGI

This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court
delivered the following:

I-193$-I V)-lV.l.VN8V)i .-£0 18l’l03 I-IEMH VXV1 N “‘
V XV)! :lO 133103 HSEH V)lV.I.VNHV)l :50 RIHOD HSIH V)!V.l.VN8V)| :50 .l.l|flOD HEJIH V)iV1VN)lV)l go umc

——… –. …….–‘ … –w–… w. …….’.’.r’…–. ….p.. ..u.’..,..’. .9. ..,–..’.’,….,.”‘,… .”‘_,” gwvfli ‘Ir “””!”‘!””H 5.’,

.JU;3r.3.MENT_

The appellant] petitionexin / ‘A1 the file of
MAC!’ No.VIi at Bijapnr, is befonj: Section 173(1)
of the Motor enhancement of
compensation V

2. Tvliie’ leading to the filing of the
appeal may be stnte-dies

s claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act,

V 19§§8;.. respondents, claiming compensation of
p:..11,4s,go¢%;; personal injuries sustained by him in the
that occurred on 29.08.2001. On the basis of
Ajplaced on xecoxd, the Tribunal has held that the accident
VT due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the jeep

es Well as the Iony and fixed contributory negligence at 75% and

» HEJIH v>w.LvNav>: so mean HSIH vxvxvmvx so mnoo I~I9lH V)lV1VN2lV)l so manor) HDIH

VXVLVNHVX :10 .l2!flO3 I-19!!-I VXVLVNXVX :10 Rlfli

25%, mspectivcly, and awarded compcnsafiQn..i_,iif

appellant as unclear:

Loss offixture cammg qO’%”15,3so4jo

Pain and suflcfing 1

Loss
period of 1:;peatv;’;;ent for Sariayfi’
(Rs.&..wj.-.xg5day%g33Vv.

spefiziaidfietv if A: _ ~ _
(Rs. 4 1; 8 dajr*S)’- _ ” ” 800-00

Less of
rcst”(‘R$,§§[ – X 60 days) 3,900~0O

‘ nursing charges
A _ ofbed rest
” _ (Rs. days) 6 000-00

Ibss amenities 7,000–0{)
.. T9ta1V’C;c>mpcnsation 46,600-O0

3. Keeping in View the nature of injury sustained by the

claimant, the Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and

.uuIu Ur IKAKNAIAKA I-HG!-I COURT KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGI

L

VXVLVNHV)! 50 RIHOD H91!-f V)lV.lVN2l\-I)! =:o.1_xnnr’x umu \nI\nvM)l\um Jr: nannfi unau uuwlwmuuu ..In I)lfl(‘\’\ unm wuulwmuuu an sunr-
HQIH

2.9: A

.5: O1 :>a2>§.x> x_”..m.r noefi L
. _. _e . . .0… .$az>«>x> :5: nocfi 0.” .$mz>«>x> :6: noca… om x>uz>«>.S Ea: nocfl 0.” .Smz.£>.$

5
directed the respective insmrance companies to pay the sameialdfieg .
with interest. There is no merit in the Appeal. ” “V ” V

4. In the result, the appeal fails _the Ahaame

dismissed. A’ % V

bnv*

9: §5<z~_§ mo Enou :9… §<..<z~§_ mo Enou :9: $_<._.. . 5.: :..:E.

I’ ..rn…I:.r’