IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
{DATED 'I'I'~iIS THE 18"' DAY OF JANUARY. 2010
: PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUs'rIcE N.K.PA';t§iI.- f A'
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE _
M.F.A.No. 5801 OFQOO5 ~ * A A
BETWEEN:
1.
Sri Mutharma. V A «_ _
S/o.S0manna Sak–r=i. – ‘
Aged about 23 years”; V V ‘
R/at. No.2’. /4. Devanfxa E3;iiA1_ding..V ”
‘Fu1a?5i.. age{AS:1ic«1;fy’flziaéili;
Ba1’A1g§&1C3:re–5*3Q O94’;-.
‘ ‘A ~ …AppeI1ant
[By Snlt.’ S__Li’11Vitha.._EA3.i:51′.–__ Sri S1.!I’€S11 M.La£hur
AcEv0(:at.e} 7 ‘ p
‘ ~ T11*eE’ai*1r1er.
‘ ViSh:1Ll Agencies.
‘ No.30/’:22, 6*” Main Road.
V3,’a1ik,;~{va1.
” Banga1ore–56O O03.
M’r.K1’1’shna Kumar.
S/0.H.Kama1a1<shamma,
R/<3. N0.]8.N.G.E.F.Lay0u{.
Sachidanandanagar.
Barlgalare-560 94.
//””‘/’A
‘[0
… P{espc)ndle111.s
This MFA filed U/s. 173(1) of MV Avt z;1gai11__s{. the
jtldgiiiem and award Dated: 11.11.2005 passed in ‘”.\/IVC
No.3″?’96/1998 on the file of the XIX Add}. SCJ ar1d_.v’~M”enibe1~
MACT. Bangalore. (SCCHW17), partly 211loxnrir1g…._t_i;»e.’eiaiht
petition for compensation 8: seeking e11h_an(.?eni-tflltp »
compensation.
This %Vl.F.A. Coming on for
J. delivered the following: . ” V’
:J U D d_.*w.V£ N ”7”.– ll
Though this matter is;’tpostedfi’to.day tor’orders, the
matter is taken up for regard to
the nature of th«je:pI’re1ief appellant in this
appeal.
Thisappeall’is_n’direeted against. the judgment
and _ “::ll’_.»ellll.2005 passed in MVC
No…a%f79e»/199és’Av1§y_ learned XIX Additional Judge.
»C'(m_1ft o.t”«._Srnall Causes and EVIACT, Bangalore.
{l1e1’e-inafi:e’r– referred to as “Tribunal” for short).
its juclgment and award. the ‘l’ri-bunal has
ll..jljV»2:rw?2tr.deet Rs.38,OO0/W under different heads with
l interest at 6% pa. from the date of petition till its
deposit. as against th claim made by the appellant {or
X/2
a sum of Rs.4.00.000/– on aeemint of the injuries
sustained by him in road traffic ac.’.eident.._v,_”‘E3»ei_ng
aggrieved by the said jiicigment and _.a__wai’rc§.1;p”—
appellant has presented
enhancement. on the ground that. ‘ivarntmnt a{»<ard'e»£i
by the Tribunal is inadequate."-…V_
4. We have heard ..e€m:nbse.1i§ for the
appellant. it i
5. After I’riat.eria1s availabie
on file, aiiti award passed -by
the that on aceoum. of the
appellant in the accident. he
has t.aken__%% treat.rnent__”..’i’ inpatient. for 28 days,
underwent t.v’\7e_VVsurgeries and thereafter foliow up
“”rtreVa’tn1e’ir:t ufoi” nine months. The ‘1’ribL.1na1 taking into
_ e’m{1.sider.atit€’ Vof the treatment taken and aiso the
r1at.”r,:.re,.__”of, permanent disabiiity suffered by the
___V’-».appeil’a1)t:, has awarded a sum of Rs.20.000/~ towards
,/jw/;1ir’}«–.i;1:1d agony. Rs.E%O/W towards medieai expenses
///IX”
if
and (to1’1veya1]ee and 1.0.000/~ towards loss of
anieniiies and in all 21 sum of Rs.38.OOO/M with interest”
at 6% p.21. fmrn the date ofpet;iii01’1 till its deposit. The
said compensation awarded by the “i’ribur1al is jushigand
1’eas(mable and it does not call for inT.e1*ferem:e._y’ VNl_Cnf’
find any good grounds to mterfere _.w,i_l_h_ _ wleE’l._
considered judgment and awa.1*d;bpas_sec_’l by ‘:fhe._”l’:i’buVh.,al
6. Having regard tofiihe faets ‘and CiIl’f§LilT1SlE3l§n(f€:S’ll’g
of the Case as stated by the
appellant is liable of merits.
nagyf/'cw R' W Judge