Loading...

Shri Udayakumar vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 8 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shri Udayakumar vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd on 8 February, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information