. R/0: Maha.nur;.__Tq5:M 'VI'. IN ms HIGH mum or % ff": . mm" mm Hoxrnm MR. A.s.%'m¢iéAxxQ§; M.F.A. H BETWEEN: S/0. Sidciappa _ Aged about years " 'V V' ()cc:AgI'icu1tt11"~'.3. 5 «. Gist: Belgsjmm V V_ 2 (By Sri. 'Advocate ) ¢.v'_IA'h<=:v-':I:)5'ivi:sia:t311aj cojgfibuef _vMW£RE@¢g Belgaum T116 Ejirector K.S. f«?»'1'. Int:=;i'nal Insurance T Shazxtinagar V. Hosama-ni, Advocate) J) *1 . . . APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS
MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) or: MV ‘A (§AL§’N’S*i_:”THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2QO7~-PASSED ‘ms. mrc
NQ1685/2005 ON THE FILE OE~”E’i~!.I5} cm;; JI’;DGE_’ gsR, I>N)”,’~
SAUNDATTI, DISMISSING T213 _.(.’g1;..A:.M :%>_E’:”;’.’1’3f_%I_():.r5_T ; FOR. ‘_:
COMPENSATION.
‘I’HiS APPEAL COMiN–(}]'{)N F613 AQM1s’;»3IGN THIS ‘z:éA’*r,
THE COURT DELIVERED ‘rHE._:éoLLowzr§(;;” V
The claimant] Court assailing the
judmem By the said’ judgment,
the petition.
“bathed counsel for the parties and
pemsaxmg
V. 3:» A. “” ‘assailing the judgment passed by the
V is contended that the Tribunal has not property
” the evidence, but has mislead itself in awarding
th1=. Atéompensation despite coming to conclusion that the
V’ accident had occurred and clamaant had suficred injuxies.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, however
sought to justify the judgment and award. passed by the
Tribunal by contsnéizzxg that, the Tribunal had noficcd that the
i
‘1
3
ciaimant had failed to establish that he had sufiexed injuries in
the accident despite accident having taken place.
S. The claimant was before the
compensation in xespect of thefiminjuxies have
sufiered in the accident, which ‘ot1’=
Insofar as the issue re]ati:r.=:g the
the said date due to the driver of the
bus, the Tnhunal as the However,
while assessieg the 3!? was of the View
thatgsiixce ovenvriting in the documents which
was the claimant, more particularly, Ex.P6
the disbelieved the contention of the claimant
to the injuries. It was the contention of the
._ due to injuries suffered in the accident, he had
‘Inst and had also suflered other injuries. No doubt in
n qesyeet of the same, the treevment taken by the claimant was
t “eeught to be established by the documents produced at Exs. P5
to P8 and P30. The-ugh as noficed by the Tribunal, there is
some overwriting with regard to the date mentioned in the
Exs.P6 and P7’, since it is eariier written as 31.05.2005 and
J;
“1
thereafter corrected as 31.03.2005, what fie
is that vide Ex.P10, it is ci.la;m
admitted to the Civil Hospitgl_on ”
In that light, if Ex.P5 is the sa;ic1 to
have treated the has referred to this
aspect of the matter was done in
the Civil Ho$pife1§» follow up treatment
has been; doctor and in the said
the details of the injuriea
are afio fact relating to the accident and
the :n3:i:ie.§s:;ffén§&V.’}ayV claimant is established, at least the
nonffiizal globe} couki be awanrled to the claimant
‘si:1gc€;,i __ compensation is to be quantified in the
there should be appropriate evidence.
“Hie £a.;s:’t1,-git the claimant had suffered injuries is estabiished
h3;_.the”‘;iocu1nent at Ex.P10 and he has undergone some
v_{izt:a*£ément and therefor;-:, even though in a normal
‘V eireumstance, it would have been appropriate to remand the
matter for consideration by pmviiing an opportunity to the
appellant, eonsiéexing that the accident occurred in the year
J
‘$
V
2005 and no purpose would be served (and
since the claimant in any event “w{)ukiv_fi6t
in a position to tender the mud’ r:nc¢’ ”
stats of affairs.
6. With a to “q}1ictwLis5″tt) matter, it is
directed that the compensation of
Rs.20,000/f the vizif and final settlement
of all paid by the respondent
6 date of receipt of a copy of
same shall be disbursed to the
._f}\ct:;)1rIiA1xi€g’i”*;*”‘ihc appeal stands disposed of. No order as
301/2}
Iudiéf