_ 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF K.ARNA'1'AKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 07'?" DAY OF AUGUST, 2098
BEFORE
THE HOBPBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.v.NAG;é§"RAT_i§:{é.r.-V _
M.F'.A.NO. 1 12g2/2005,: % ff}.
BETWEEN: V * "
Sri.Nagesl1, S/o Adiveppa.'
Honnihal, Aged about 45 V
Medical Pxactilioncr, R/o Sulebhavi,
Belgaum District. _
_ _ V 'L fm§PELLANT
(By ad R¥.=":'1ay,"' Adv.)
l._ Gangé;t%§Im"pJayanache,
Major, OWI'21:r bf LML Scooter,
'r€o.3<;A---22/J--s492.,R/o plot No. 1,
"it/lafa' Kmpa Building,
" Ada1js1h.,1'eEaga;r, M.Vadagaon,
A Thc_}3i§isionai Manager,
India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Divisional Ofice Club Road,
AA 'Hf-3&c1gaum--591 102.
.... . . RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. L.B.Ma11odar, Adv. For R2)
– 3..
This MFA is filed under Seciton 173(1) offthc Act
against the Judgment and Award dated 16.1.200!3*.p’as_scd in
MVC.No.1930/1999 on the file of the II Add1.,D.t$t:”ict ‘Judge
as Member, MAC’I’~II1, Bclgaum, partly allowgng “t1j1c
petition for compensation and sccktmg cnhazgccmcnt oi
compensation. _ —
This MFA coming on for
court delivered the foiloewingz
Junéfi_fiT<d°
Though this in'a;te:~ is; orders with the
consent of.' 9' parties, it is heard
2. Tlfiis’ by the claimant challcnghg the
Judgiienf V. in MVC.No.1930/1999 datcd
the MAUI’, Belgaum.
9′ 3. facts of the case are that the clam ant
his wife Samja were proceeding on a motor cycle
A’ No. KA~22/M 3018 on 25.4.1999 at about
I3.00p.mWhen the rider of scootcr bearing No.KA-22 J 8492
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
-3.
the claimant’s scooter, as a resuit of which
injuries. Contcnding that he had suficrfiéi’ ”
disability on account of the injuries’. ._ “the
accident, he filed the claim pcfifipn ht
various heads.
4. On receipt the second
respondent] and filed its
Written stegtéfijgjfiitt made in the claim
petifioxf ciaimant mmseif was rash
anti and therefore, sought for
distniséal of
R an the of the above pleadings, the Tribunal
‘ ” following issues:
.V ‘1. Whether the petitioners prove that they
” sustained bodily injuries $13 to motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 25.4.1999 at 15 hows
on P.B.Road near Sambra Cross?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent
fl
-4-
driving ofhifl. Scooter bearing No. KA-22/.;+3«é’92’ _
by its rider? L’ A
3. Whether the petitioners Gf8..eia£itle§i~ fob 3 _&
compensation? If so, to whatarnouni “cztfttri frem, ‘
whom?
4. What order?3' _ 6. in support of himself
as F’W.1 and Dr.S.vR”.«$.iLgat(ii his wife as PW.2
and got ‘tespondent did not
let in atxy insurance policy.
The ef the evidence on record
g1’éV_V1v’:1tegi’.A 1 ef $20,000; – with interest at the
ratetteif of claim petition till realization.
the said Judment and award, the
” . this appeal.
. ~ heard Sri. Y.Laks11mika11tha Reddy learned
j for the appeilant and Sri. L.B.Ma11odar learned
V’ * for the second respondent insuxanee company.
fir
-5-
3. It is submitted on behalf of the appe11a%Vst1t:.:”i;.’@é1fi;’ the
appellant had sustained fractuxe of left
injury to right cheek and there the .feee.
and he had. taken treatment ‘A
and as a result of the ..a0§;¢1ent~1:1e
was permanently dise1b1edAse.~:;d’Lvfoixnd to carry out
his avocation as an ‘but the Tribunal failed
to appreejate .__t’hese” granted a meager
he therefore requests
on various heads
and ._ ‘ ‘
V, Per”‘oo_ntV1’*a, it is submitted on behalf of the insurance
coii1..L;a:A;j.3nj1:i;3,t._vt11at a sum of Rs.12,000/- has been awarded
of left tibia and a sum of Rs.3000/ – towards
«injuries and a sum of Rs.50{)0/- towards medical
.. expenses and totally Rs.20,000/- and there being no other
V’ * Eevidenoe on record, the Tribunal was justified in not granting
compensation on the other heads. He therefore submits that
*3/*
~6-
the appeai be dismissed as there is no evidenee_4’efh,’;ance
the compensation granted by the ‘i’n”buna1.
10. In support of his submission he 3}
Judgment of the Division~’Be–goh of
Subashchand Jain vs. ma reported in
ILR 2002 Ka;-natakef-$255 mat the absence
of the evidence, no 5awa:nded under the
head some compensation
could of amenities as opined
1.1. i ’13.,aj&eV fhe evidence on Iecoxd and find that
‘not undergone any surgery for the flacture
V’ 2 sustained and the summary sheet Ex.P9 also
” that any operation was conducted on the
apeeflant. The appeiiant though has deposed that as a
“gtneydical practifioner (Ayuxvedic doctor) he was earning
123.5000] -p.m, theme is no corroborative evidence to
substantiate this fact.
..7-
12. Pw.3 the doctor who has been examined in t’n:e “matter
has however, stated that there is on
account of the fracture to the left
movement of the left knee joint ire ” ‘V _
13. Considering these of safely
be concluded that a result of
the injuries eustainetl on account of
there being _ on the head
of loss I opinion that 3. sum of
Rsi.’3o’;oee’;,-_v the head of the disability
eddit£on10,000/ ~ on the head of loss of
aznenittes Rs.S00()]~ towards conveyance and
n;isceiIaneon’s expenses, in addition to what has been
V the Tribunal so as to meet the ends ofjustice.
“V taocordingly, enhanced compensation of Rs.45,000/ ~
AA interest at the rate of 6% 33.3. from the date of claim
ht Hnetition till realization is awarded. Out of the enhanced
compensation a sum of Rs.25,000/— with proportionate
-3-
intercst shall be deposited in any Nationaljzed –“”f9r a
period of 5 years and the appeiiant ‘ta
draw periodical interest on the _
compensation shall be steicased : A
Appeal is partly in mg a1aovt{
Iudga
KVN*