IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE ST" my OF FEBRUARY, 2010;"-----_ BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.vENuGoPA_LA..:Go,woA in MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL'No.4,.2I::;210'o8:( P5iV)". BETWEEN: Shri. Udayakumar, S/0 Shri. Rajamanikam, Aged about 22 years, , R/at No.1, 15' Cross, _ ' 6"' Main, Gouthamnagar, Srirampuram, ' Near Gandhi S.cho_o'i., V, _, j' Banga|ore~56G_ 0;'»,:11".._. ., , "'""':APRELI_ANT (By Sri. AND: 1. The New India A-SSiJr'a.n'C'e"'Co. Ltd., Divisionai Office, 2T"'--vfioor, Vivlahaiiakshmi Complex, ,_»»isI':;.9/'2, V M.G; '-Ro,.a..d.« 'Ban'e;:'0aEo'ie§560 001. ' i«t_S'nfIa,n"ag_er. Ezfshri. 'Eii.d~ayIeEhuEiah, S/o vShr.i.,.'Ghouse Khan, Major, No.18, NIT Srinidhi Layout, Vidyafanyapura, " Iiagngaiore-560 097. :RESPONDENTS
(‘[13:30/E Sn. Suryanarayana Rao, Adv. for R1:
._.;R2 notice dispensed with vide order dated 30.3.2009)
ix}
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act
against the Judgment and Award dated 17.11.2007 passed
in MVC No.1621/2006 on the file of the Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area,
Bangalore, (SCCH-9), Partly allowed the claim petitio-rrifor
compensation and seeking enhancement of C0mpe_I’:–Sa”tiO!J.”..
This appeal coming on for hearing this
delivered the following:–
JUEJGMENTQ
Heard Sri Shripad V.._V:ShVastri’,” rlearnerd”‘:._;ad~vocate ” it
appearing for the appellant an.d:’*S_ri”‘..$urya’naray,a§na Rao,
learned advocate app’earing.__ fE}”.o}.- respondent.
Perused the record
-\
4. llll m_ét.’_.vwith–Va”Vroad traffic accident on
25.12.2’OOV5″drue’ negligent driving by the driver
of the .,respoi.d,er’it.’s vehicle. Appellant sustained injuries
t’reatme’n’t”.'”The injuries sustained by him are
r.grie.vosus}.,i%n’ unatiure. He has incurred expenditure for
obtaining.of’4j’..-treatment. There was also loss of income
3’4«___”-during”treatment period. He was an auto rickshaw driver.
,”‘-According to him, he was earning Rs.4,SOO/– per month
arid the evidence on record shows that he sustained 15%
k,
w
idateydof
sustained by the appellant. Hence, I deem it appropriate
to award a further sum of Rs.10,000/- under the.éhead–u’:l’oss 3
of amenities in future life’. In all other respect:-ithig~.aVWard”_4’_'”
made by the Tribunal is just a:rid”‘proAper,
remain undisturbed.
In the result, I pass the foI:l:owing:–“–
»
The appeal is allowedV:l’in_p.va_Vrti,_ i it
In modi_fi?i;ati5o’n’._.of,thejutdgmeht ‘passed by the MACT,
appellant -V..he-!cV£:j_:nentitl’ed”‘x«’to:neonfépensation amount of
Rs.1,67?,:512_/.A–1it’as.adalin’s.t’.””{2is.1,f57,512/~ awarded by the
Tribunal. ‘T_heienhani:e’d:_4a”mousnt of Rs.10,000/~ shall carry
interestvat 6% pa’ from the date of claim petition till the
mio”nvt’hs’fV-tiime is granted to the Insurance Company
to dieposiigv’tit-e:”‘cAompensation amount in the Tribunal.
l .. ‘S-a–<:l*
Sd/-
HEDGE
