Rachegowda @ Rachaiah vs Shivanna S/O Poojari Beera … on 8 September, 2009

 E.  -. Shia'v.a?nna,"a-- A.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE 

DATED THIS THE 8"?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 200_9_*V  ..

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE S. ABbUL «N/iazE;.':.-fa  _  "  

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO()..::;_3;é/2065  " 

Between:

Rachegowda @ Rachaiah,

S/0 Ningaiah, ._ 

Aged about 29 years,    _  '

R/0 S0damuddinakere,g_   _,     :
Maiava11iTa1uk,     ,     V O' 

Mandya Di;§vtricf." ' A. Of'   O  Appellant.
(By sm Hrr. Narendra P§?aé§achO  
And:  O n A O :

~  "S/_0 }7'.o0j.a:*i4vOB~eera Heggade,
 " .Aged,.abput.5a8 years,
= 'Rio Meilahainvizzage,
F,M.D~odd§; Bharathi Nagar,
V §'vI'ad.d'i3.§j Taluk,
 A M-andya District.



2 The Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd,

No.11i9/B, MG. Road,   _ _ 
Mandya.  Respondentsf.' 1 *
(By Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, Adv. for R2   

Notice to R1 dispensed with)

This Miscellaneous First Appeallis under S_lec[l173l>(i) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, agai.:1s't--the jtidgrnent'and»award
dated 15.3.2005 passed in MVC No.l0/2;S02"ora».,the.file of the Civil

Judge (SIZDIL) and MACT, Maddur, eltcf' 

This Miscellarieotis l3§?lirst:.i lAppeal*ivi"_c-ogming I on for Finai
Hearing this day. _the C-.;'§i1'l_r_t_ delivered the following:

 

.... -    77 W?Ii!ENT .  i
 appealVis*dir.ected*--ag'ainst'lthe judgment and award in

MVC No.10/Zions?' d.ate'd._:l5l,_3'.Z?lt:l!35l on the file of the Civil Judge

i(Svr.DnV_;'}~l'..and'  The appellant was the claimant

.'b.efore"t--he court'he'1ow. The first respondent was the owner of the

offeradiiig vehicie.:.The second respondent was the insurer of the

 'said vehicle... There is no dispute as to the occurrence of the

  acci_dent..Aand the liability of the second respondent--Ir1surance

 ____l"Corr;;pany to pay the compensation. The only question to be

if
uh

w



the claimant are not serious in nature. Therefore, the award of

compensation in a sum of Rs.25,000/~ is just and reasonable.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has taken me ..

the judgment as also the evidence let in by the parties.  clear" i

from the evidence that the claimant has  the ~:£'olllolwing"'l"

injuries: o

"l. Bleeding causing from nose a_nd..left ear;

2. Cut injury 3" x 2" present in .f_vorehead:.l_: I

3.  injury  xfl  in the centre of forehead.
4. Wound On'  

5. Wound right .po'r'tion:r.egion.

 'Bleeding ear-..  V' in

'V " . V 7." Cerebral contusion?"

'St Hoxvevefl the Doctor, who had examined the claimant

~  not sta1ed'1~that the claimant has suffered permanent disability.

l "-lj~lav_ir1g_ref-appreciated the evidence on record, I am of the View that

  theV_compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.25,000/--

%
all



is on a lower side. Having regard to the injuries sustained by they

claimant and the expenses incurred by him for his treatment, "i_t,i_s~  "

just and reasonable to award additional sum of

(inclusive of interest) towards compensation.

6. In the result, the appeal  and
allowed in part. 1 direct the  Arespdndemgtnsixranqfiipdtnpany
to deposit an additionai  :R_s;§0gQi§O/'s'(inclusive of
interest) within  of receipt of a
copy of this to disburse the said

amount in favour of t11e:"e1airnante,.'1'Jo' costs.

 .....  

BMt.»t/9920t)9i”–V’rj 1