IN 11% HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA1\:cf;gx:f'{31ii:;–.T: ~ ..
Dated this the 6’*day omanuaz-y, zoos?” ”
Before
ms HGIWBLE MR JUSTYCE’ Hi?1,U¥i4z3} ‘~ « . i .
Mmcdianwm 7393)’ 29.125′
Betweezs: b
Semanatha S/0 Nithyanandaf
29y1’s,R/oIyofl1iNflaya,GPROagd’ 1 .
Saga: ‘fawn, Shi1nogaV_Dis12l’i¢; ‘ _. Afipeliant
(By Sri. Rameah c*;:n:;;s;«§¢%Rai,;%%Adv,)’% A: V.
1
Df§ver_ sf :m;»_No;JVK;A 19m 2772
Hazsambi __
2 s shaébecr Ahangeci’ smjiieik
é R2’oLJa11atixa”IsI;sgVar, Owner of Mini Lorry
T: “‘B¢aafi:1gA_No. 153.52’; 2?? 2
Town
I 3 Iw;:di§2.°Aa§urance Company Ltd
. “*’Divi«sieifx*_a1:fE)fico;e, MaIlappa’s Compound
__ B Roaéd, Shimoga Respendents
“(By Tsn’ AM:Venkates]1, Adv. far R3)
_ First Appeai is filed under 3.173(1) of the MVC Act praying to
” aside the judgment and award dated 28.3.2006 in MVC 6S?f20()0 by the
.4 ” -‘?e*iACT3 Sagan
This First Appeal canning on for Hearing this day, the Cam dclivercii
the following:
I
J U DGMENT
Appeai is by the claimant seeking eréxancegnefit ofV’4éGi£a§¢iisa’tinnVL’forVV ‘ f ”
the injuries sustained by him in a motor ve};ii¢Ie7§£cidefit*
with she award passed by the MACT,’ in Ixérvcfi e9;2(:~.:§< ).?i._j '
On 8.12.1998 arolmdv was traveliing as a
fare paid passenger inVavr:1ixai:3.(:;*r§.,;*_' 2772, due to the
negligent driving VitV: ;i§1§i<=::'<i"iV:¢)a bus which was going
from Yeliapixxi .19 claimant was who was a
passenge:*;VVér::V_fl'::»:5 and was treated at KIMS
hospital Claiming cor.-mpematiorl, petition was
filed. Matter vviis Tribunal having held that the accident was
' «flue t;*3.'<the',.A'z:eg,iig.ence"dfV'tE1é:'vdriver of tiw mini iorry in qlwstion. awarded a
ipfal {sf R.s.30,0(}i}!– Not satisfied, claimant is before this
Co'u11__. 'A
.. V' L' Heafii the counsel representing the parties.
It is the argument of the ciainaanfs enamel that claimant has not been
a hgfiitably awarded far the injuries sustained and that the ciaiznant has
<H'"'
sustained two irzjuries via, deep injury on the right knee and also a !e'e.'a"dT
injury.
Counsel representing the insurer submitted”tieat the ei_aiiiia:1_i
passenger in 3 goods vehicle. Since already eiivaieilvirits
pursuant to the ratio laid down in New Ce
& Ors – AIR 2009 SC 235 case, the_ eward ‘ Howeiiver, in
View of the recent judgnent in Nari: VP’: Vedww &
Ora – AIR 2007 SC 1334 by the that the
insurer has to satisfy the Efemeiiiiiiagcfiliaiieed a_’w3:jrd.’ Tfiiefe is no liability on
the insurer as izié
Having is uf sustained, two doctors have
been examined on {if It is seen, the claimant was also
treetecl at Iiespital Meciicai Coilege Hospital, Manipal.
Aléheilglz is ‘in the report that the claimant has sustained fracture,
n0mmg”lnas”l5een’iseiea :5 what is the nature of the fiaemre and to which
of the circumstances, the claimant would be entitled to
‘ over and above what has been awarcieé by the Tribunal
6_%*€iife§eet from the date of petition an deposit. It is for the appellant
. firoeeeéil against the owner to recevey the ainount.
W
Appeal is, accordingly, allowed inpart.