IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13TH mar OF BECEMBER. 2:oj'.l'el:.e BEFORE zme HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.sRa:eNI=sjAse Miscellaneous First Appeal of BETWEEN Smt Latha R K, V A W/0. M Ramakrishna, _ Aged about 36 years, V j Residing at N0.6E.'--,3='d ?hase'; Sri. Balaji Lay0u't3_" ' r R. K. Nagar. ' Bangalore 4 56 3 Appellant Naveen & Harish L, Advs.) ANDA.-. . '~ I" ..... _ .. VNo_,2~9/~2l;'Battery Pension Lane "'*Bar1gé;l_0r?e M 560 047. - ll 'iTl1le«._I1.*"l4F'CO Tokie General Insurance Co Ltd., N0.-~41, 2"" Floor, Laveile Road, l " l L " " Bangalore. Respondents
{By Sri. D Vijay Kumar, Adv. for R2,
R1 –~ notice dispensed with V / 0. dated 3.12.2010}
%’
This MFA is filed U/ S 173(1) of MV Act against .__the
Judgment and award dated: 02.12.2008 passed in
cNa373o/2008«matherueofxrAddnmnaiJudgajo§un;
of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Banga1o§re;’*A§jartl3a%___
allowing the claim petition for compensation. ‘and.
seeking enhancement of compensation.
This appeal coming on forA,Acln1i:ss«ic0n’;~’ jthi’s'[j’d._ay::/r_*t
the Court, delivered the following: ‘-
Junomfimg’
This appeal is byatlie clai§_rian.t’ »fo’1″.ienhancement of
compensation a1varded»~b3}_ the —
2. Heard: and with the
consent’ hoil’Colun:sel appearing for the parties, it
is taken up for final
. 3. For the ‘sake of convenience parties are referred to
‘a.r’e:t’eferred to in the claim petition before the
‘rrfiatuaa1Qj,’;’
“Brief facts of the case are:
That on 7.04.2008, when the claimant was
~»-piroceedirig in a motor cycle bearing registration No.
KA«03~HA–96’71 as a piilion rider on Ramakrishna
Hegde Nagar main road, Bangalore an autorickshaw
bearing registration No. KA-~O3-9761 came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against
cycle, as a result, the claimant fell down H
injuries. Hence, she filed a claim’pc.tition.gblefo1fe’tl%1ex.’1
MACT, Bangaiore, seeking ¢o:i1pe:ijs;;§t1on«i ‘
Rs.10,00,()OO/-. The Tribunaliby
and award has awardied of lRs.9VV1,6()()/-
with interest at 9% Pa
5. As occurrence of
accident,wnelgligence of the insurer of the
offending gploint that remains for my
consideration is:
A “i-Whether” the quantum of
_ c.om_pensation awarded by the Tribunal is
” and_j.. proper or does it call for
‘ enhancement?
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties
V.”Vl.Aan.dr’.-perusing the award of the Tribunal, I am of the
__View that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore
it is deserved to be enhanced.
$5
“F. The claimant has sustained supracondylar
I
fracture of right femur. Injuries sustained
evident from discharge summary Ex. P 9 H
by oral evidence of the ciaimant”ex’amin.ed.ya,s”
She has not examined the doctor regarding d’
8. Considering the nature–_inji.1″ri.es’, /-
awarded by the Tribunaldh suffering is
just and properaifid thiere. is;no.”s¢cpe for enhancement
under this V
9. C1air:aai’21;p”‘wa:s_ _tr.e’at_ed” as’ inpatient in Hosmath
Hospital’frc)1’nVV8fi0;j3.;2()Qk*:”;_:t(3- ._ 1’2~;05.2008 for 4 days. The
Tribunal claimant has not produced
any ..i1tjiedica1 awarded a sum of Rs.3,200/_
1nedi’Ci.1_ie and hospital charges, Rs.1,000/~
towardsuv ‘ and R.1,000/– towards
‘.convey’anee.Vand attendant charges. The same is on the
ilowef-<–..pside and therefore I award Rs.15,000/– towards
___""medical and incidentai expenses such as conveyance,
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of t.1ii:sT
judgment and the same is ordered to be reIease§.i..i'41; h'iL;<»§'V;~ '4 V.
favour.
No order as to costs.
Vb]-