}{§3_fif'$RI.M.NARAYANAPPA, ADV. FUR R-3. R-2 SERVED.
IN mg men COURT op' KARNATAKA AT BANGALOI'§E}j.:.:':":'.__
DATED was THE 15TH DAY 01:' JULY 2003 5 A'
PRESENT: 'u H"n
Tm: HONBLE MRSJUSTICE
THE HODPBLE MR.JUSrIi%DK.vNf}:Eér~zAV.ANAia§2*;>x*Ai$:A
M.F.A.No.1932 I {MW
R.i\fi.YADUKUMAR S/G LATE
AGED ABOUT 47 YEAR,-_*;,,__ ~ " . ; A
R/O NO1319, ATH mARs,,
KRISHNAIv£URTHYPU.12A'{S?i__--.'_ ~
MYSORE. :
V _ V A_..w.APPELLANT
(By Sri: c:1~liI::'I;¢3'i'~I~£xE;V:i§ 1582;.§'§?Ad'i"'.P{d'."ii.'i£3AKSHAYANi, ADVS.)
ME'; 1 _ _ . A _ _
1 ?.NARA¥A§IA.VswAM'f';§) AAPAQMARAJ,
AGEIZI ABOUT MAJOR, '
v N0.1'93, 2.3" MA:N;vz.I).YARANYAPuRAM,
'mfS0R'E; 1' ~
2 =.N"AGESH';'S.. "$j{;..KR1sHNAPPA,
AGE?) A8t3.UTA'MAJOR,
A N{i);--161/2,KURUBAGERI,
; f)EVRI§I'SaR0AE, MYSORE-24.
,3 V.'A».,Ti§£';'_NEw INDIA ASSURANCE (30. um.
" REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
.;.V1,.B'. ROAD, CHAMUNSIPURAM,
MYSORE. RESPONDENTS
/ . NO'I'iCE TO R-1 DISPENSED WYYH.)
2.
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OP' IVIV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 15.7.2004 PASSED IN MVC
310.58/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL. VC;'--I_V§L
JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85 CALM. 35 MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLV(}WIi'*§G
THE CLAIM PET§'I'I()N FOR COMEPNSATION AND
ENHANCEMENT OF' COMPENSATION.
Tms M.F.A. comma ON FGR A;:)MIssIm2'..,.A'f:*VV£~1i:é[.:'3Aa?,"'
MANJULA CHELLUR, J., DELIVERED Ti-IE F?OL._{.§)\V'§NG': »' '
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is posted “a;:}miSSiQ11,~ ‘Ccn;~:§(~:nt ” L’
of both the counsels, the same is “u_p”–f<_3r fii1a1.,c1i$fi0sa1 fin
merits.
2. Sri.M.. ‘-colfiisel is directed to take
notice for resfiflniiexit ” ‘
3. I~Iea2:d1 E-fainted Coi.iézsel far the appeliant and the
reéspoiidcfit a$”wei;i,
of the accident on 5.12.2002 near
Ctgizxféhfc éfi Mysore when the appellant was travelling in
Cab, diie to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
thé in which he was tiravelling and the said vehicie
has reached the finality in View of the fact that
‘fesfiondents have not questiofied the actionable negfigence of
2″
s:f«:{1a::<'ij:s1<':;a,
3
the driver of the Maxi Cab. The next question would be with
regard to the quantum of eemgaensation awarded by the
Tribunal, which is questioned before us by the appellant.
5. According to the appellaxzt, there are _t§\%6′ _
committed by the Tribunal. One is arithmetic ca1cu1é;fe¢:;.tjwh:1a:” ~ rt
tetaling the amount of cerepensatien t
heads and the second error .is-..__awardii1g cernjpeq:_1sa§§ioI1 u
disprepertionate to the disability a11dmaterie1e_I1.:reeerd.
6. S0 injury 9%} the right
hand involvirtg .eot..veer§0ue1y in dispute. He was first
taken to Where the skin grafting
was dorrerby fa Later on, he took further
treatrirentni:rcittditig._physietherapy at KR. Hospital, Mysore. He
has éeegegtrfof’joengeeesation of Rs.10,()0,000/–, in an. P.Ws.2
TV 3 are”‘«the,.__’Der;:«tiers who treated the appellant and who have
tH’elee-.vri’SseSsed”V–the permanent disability ef the right hand. At
and 13 of the judgment of the Tribunai, We find
diejC”ussien of these two medical experts to the effect that in spite
“gfihysgiotherapy, the aepellarxt suffers from permanerrt
Z ._ Rs;2a?:77Q3,Ic6;39c$¥ef’-« ., – . .
9. S0 far as the arithmetic error i.e., totaling t11+:~: amount
of campensation, it ought to have been Rs.1,35,7″0O/– and not
Rs.1,0{},200/–.
10. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part V’
the appellaxxt in aii, was ezztitled fez?’ ~34 A of u
Rs1,35,7()0/-. So far as other Ttfie
Tribunal, we confirm the same.