High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M C Nagendra vs G K Suresha on 3 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri M C Nagendra vs G K Suresha on 3 June, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
_, , , 3 Ma_nd3'a§ 

'  . _   é  'Manager

   E3.S.Indiresh, Advocate far R2; R1~Service of neticei
 j rfif.sp3n$.5d with}

~, 't'}'3'é3' juzigmeni: and award" dated 3i.€}8.i2C307, gassed £11 MVC
 Nc:s.10'?';'2006,cm the {its :31" their Pmmiding Officm", Fast Track Ccaurtw
' H, Manciya, partiy" allewing the ciaim petition for compensatien

IN THE man COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALOARE %
DATED THIS THE 03313 {)AYV'J(i}'V§"'JU1\J'ii},    M 
BEFCJRE  M A. " V' "
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTQVE1%V.JA&AmA?a?HA;§"  '
M.F.Af :i~Ig.s58ii"20é8 (Rim 4 V'
BETWEEN: 4'   .'   %
Sr}. M.C.Nagcnd1a__  '
S/0. Chowdegowda   V   . _  .
Aged about 43  V '    --'  " 
R/a:      
Mandya Taluég  ¢_   Appellant

(BY Sri  '   , Advocates}

AND: . - * V " 
1. G.¥{.S:1re3ha" _
Sfo.  _  V. 
" <  0;. Nearufit-1ya1ak$.hmi Talkies
- .L__fsr1_:s_shwara Nagam

V 'Gric.r;taJL._I1isurancc Co. Ltcip
-Gpy.  i"'.'I'. C. L. , M11. Road
¥*v'§.a:_:1:;1yz1. . . . Respcmdenis

This appsal is fiisd under section 1373(1) sf M,V.A(:t, against

and 'seeking e11ha.m:<=.-metxt cf canzpensatian.
This appeal coming on far adznissimz ibis day, ihf': Cctmrt
passed the: foliowing;



 

JUDGMENT

The award passed by the Tribunal

appellant is called into question

flund that quantum of compensaticiu on l,c§we°r side, ‘V

having regard to the medicai evi&e.fice onhzeeeifi…

2. The learned Cxxmieel fe-fmtiiet téiiibfixits that

the medicai evidence reVe’é1%::_’ti:Lat:V’Vtt:e had suffered

15% Whoie the fracture sustained
by him gmdv _Aii1..%_V£.a'(1;»t’ii;t:i(}Ix,.jttihtirt in§111ées were also caused to
him. the four injuriesk the MAC’? has

awarded aV”*::Qt131V3ei”::fse1it)11.:’«’§;f 4Rs.23,GO0/~ towards “loss of

fi.1t1iI:E._i i.fi(:fi]}1€2”, on the lower side. The MAC?’ has

ztcxiz._ e.w2;;{c§1ed4 fl::o:r:pensat:i0n uncier the heaci “pain and

‘cempensat:ic:13. awardeé under the heads

V _ “meciécal –.eXpe1’ises” and “$933 of amenities of life” is on the

h 4’ ‘ = leaflet’ sié’-:~:–;

3. Taking note of the above ezxbmission, hearing the

‘”gi.e’arz1ed Counsel for the mspondtentj insurance company and

on perusal of the evidence on record} them is jusfification to

inerease the compezlsatien under the above heads.

3:»

4

4. In View of 15% pB1’II181″1CIit disability

body’, the appellant Wouid be enfifleei “tc ¢_c’e;I:1§)e:};§$a’iiQfi:V”oi;

(Rs.3,0{)0/- (in<;:0me} x 12 (menthsl X

{disability} .7 35,75,600/–; Rs.V75.;5'QO/–,xwheiweaés £ig§%"'MAeT

has awarded eompensafizug of Ti;1A1:'s-,A uiider the

said head, the appeiiafif enhanced

V

coaamensation of and Sufferizlg"

Rs.35,0(}()/-- 1,15    tmatrnent taken,
finither filimv    and towards "loss of

amenities of to the Whoie body éisabifity
and age 51* sum of R’s.3{),OO{)/– is

V 5, ” {the total eampensation gets enhanced by

Re{ 1 The said amount will carry interest at 6% per

Tiqevappeai is aiiowed in part. The award stands

accordingiy.

%!__,e
T6393

SNN