S Prashanth vs T C Mallikarjuna on 24 March, 2008

BEFORE  V
we nomm: 1un..:ue1-Ice 3.3.   5  '
nnrrwmmn:      

S. Prnshahtll,

S] o.late K.M.Shiva1'am,
Aged %ut 22 ye.-am, 
R/o.Ananda Nflaya, ' __ 

... . .. -. 11,, !'_4_njg * 3'-2':--r  " Ann--In AIIUII

nnaz1 Monaua, '--e___';:r:.,«   _  nrrnumm.
(By SILM    \, 

s;o.:a:.a?.. '.(°.§uo.""**"u€';afé?I€'ahe¢uuu"':';"*a§".-u."

Owner of'f¢€ar!1*hi'  bearing
No1Ki5~*996fi;, "  '  

R] o."Bheem'&sainudI'"aeVViflage,
chitmdurgafl') &,(D;*- 577 005.

2  Branch"Mv.-wdager,

Ufiimd 'India Insmance Co; Ltd',

V' t'    Dummi Complex,

5"\;_-

" . 1  cmumufnga - 577 005.  nu:-olinnrrrs

z  appeal isfiled 11/3 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act

» " '¥.1gni_ngt_ the Judgment and Award dated 30.11.2005 passed in
VMVC No.616/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) &
 Add'. Pal.-='.m., C'.1iLm-...-iurga, 3-.=-.r*J._',r  the ,c1.eI.i_rI_'1. pe1_1'.t_i_on

 for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

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



1.

There is a delay of 213 days in filing

. 0}”?

.9 _”v.oft.{“‘J–,..

appli’-‘tic-n “eelstinfi cufidonafin iof -a__ppg1i’3nf~.__ _j

is a legally untrained person end nrae”z:;ot
of limitation and that he
instruct him to pmfeif’ neaeoniinssigned can
hanily be taken as iitfieondone the delay.
However, to out, to the appellant,

I have cot:nee1’w’for the appellant on the
‘2. compensation in a sum of
Rs599,000/4.V- in} the injuries suffered by the claimant

. ” . iiéceiiient on 03.05.2001. The clsiman… w..s

I 111$”

_,.’H_’ IIDHVE la {he 41.1113 nine-sir’:-I-at. ‘I’$|

5’ u.u…u;v..« w-Us uu.n.u u. nu. uu; a.\.«\.-Jntuu.
an , .””‘6 J

I
. ‘E
4; ‘Q: ”

.. ._ _n’.fl:”;_-_ 10.-.. _4__ I

~eum:1ed II’ElctI:I1″Eu injiiries and has taken treatment as

ar
5″

AA an inpétfient subjecting himself for surgezy in Kasturba.

at Manipal, he has not chosen to examine the Doctor

0 __3wl1o treated nor any other Medical Expert to show whether the

personal injuries sutfered by him left behind any pcnnanent

hr

f’1iBE.l;l””‘i’Ii’t§7. fiespite the same, the “i”ri’ou.na1 having consitiemd
the medical records and other evidence on mcord has-awaxded

Rs.50,000/- towards agony, pain and sufi’eri1tg,_”:–

towards medical expenses. Rs.6,000/-

charges, Rs.3,000/- towantls sportafiottt’V:vohs1~’ges

Rs.10.000/” towards Rene:-al A’ ‘L

1-0:

Ra.99,ooo_/- was awamed

. …Ld.ence ..t’ the Doctor the asserts: oi’;-any mater-Ia.

-9.

I'!

to show that the    any ciisabiiity, the
Tribune: has    under the head

Permancm’ the matter, even on
ground to entertain this
appeal. ._ the application filed seeking
condohtttton of and consequently the appeal

“stands ti:2sti1isset51.

AA t=Ks” hi’ Sd/I’