IN THE HIGH COURT OF ;<ARNAI2aI¢§;%ALT%
BANGALORE % *
DATED THIS THE 16"' my OF sAN1:A}:s* L
BE1'4*0RiE %
THE HON'BLE MR. msujlcriHiJLUvA:)L<;a1aAMESH
MISCELLANVISOUSA F.iI§,§T'vAPl5EAi._N(§.8985 01-'
%
BETWEEN;
Sri.Ra_jcne_ira Singh Rajei1dra”3ingh,
S/o Soh61″{mVSé:1g.h’Gq;1r;’~. _ ‘
Aged aimxzzz yearg. ‘.
Residing £5; Thé?:iny”‘Sandm, ” ‘ ‘
Aitabic Cciliag::.._ %
Nagawara, Bm:gal_c5fi:¢56OQ45. …APPELLANT
(By sr5.%1<,T.GmLude%v5 Sri.I-I.R.Sathyapa],
J 4_%.$ri.C.K.LiSkeshv_g;1;1 Sri.K.R.Vcnkatesh Gowda, Advs.)
– Ahmed,
S:’o..B};S.Mohmnmed Basha,
~, Major, Residing at M244,
Near Water Tank, Behind Fort Street,
AA ; Varthur, Bangalore-8’7.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd,
Regional Offica, No.44/45, LEO Complex,
Dev)/’s Building, Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore-1,
By its Regional Manager. …RESPONl}ENTS
(WV,
(By Sri.C.Ravikumar, Adv. for R-I ,
Sr:i.K.Suresh, Adv. for R-2)
#134!
This M.F.A. is filed under Ssction—-}:v:A:?’f3(I§–.:t)t_
against flue judgment and awarddated 23.6._0S_” ‘-pa_ssed[‘:7n t’MVt;’3
No.2085/99 on the file of the Niembcrz :3NIACT,V”CG'{lfi’t__ (¥f;VSma1i”–.. -~
Causes, Metropolitan Areg May£a1;a:i3.__Unit, ‘£,?_angal0r:§,”{SCC,H.
No.20), partly allowing that claim petition fut (;{;)}z:.})§:;1sation-arid
seeking enhancement ofcon3pénsafi0n;– ._ 7
This M.F.A.v this day, the Court
delivered the foIlowi:§_g:’« 1 _
…. in preferring the appeal.
_sa’nfic to the condition that the claimant
is not 2&1:-ijtic*.dVtcj._tV}i’e_ amoimt for the period of delay-
appeal is by the claimant making for
‘A of compensation being not satisfied with the
‘A T qdantizm of compensation awarded by the V Add}. MACT,
3 = émgalorc, in Mvc No.2085/99 by order dated 23.6.05.
W
3. According to the claimant on 20.12.98 around 10.00
pm. while he was crossing the Aiiport Kcsdjhalli
junction 3 Maxicab bearing No.1<Ao3 A 23:34
driver came in a rash and negl§VgérV;f':2mri'271_sz< ti: hi£n_
due to which, he fell He
was treated at Manipal K has spent
Rs.l,00,000/- the petition was
filed. The ecifitestea, having raised
as maxgy having held that the
ac;c:iel<=n'fA' of the driver of the Maxi
:total compcnsafirion of Rs. 1 ,l8,5{)0/-
with k6%5n:e;es:.'%%13e;;:g not satisfied, the claimant is before this
5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the
— ‘ cIaimant has not been awarded suitably on all the heads.
W
6. Pctncontra, flue learned Ceunscl for tlieii,:.1lt:;surance
company has submitted that the claimant
awarded on all the heads. There; is ‘as’
question of awarding any a!I}{}lII]i_0il:_fl’i£.fi ‘ddesi’ri:§t_.ari:sfe.
7. As per the Vn2¢§iical.AeVir!i¢i:iié’ is sgenrmai the claimant
has sustained trauiriaiic i ijiiifra hacmorrliage,
laceration y:»vé:;fe3n;:i£)ra§ hemiparictis and injury
to the nlgm§y¢;irnc awarded Rs.2{),OO0/-“towards
” ‘towards medical expanses,
iiiiiiirislimcnt, Rs.S,00O/- towards attendant
‘g:jharges, iit(:w_ia”rtls laossi cf income for the laid up period
ii ” , and Rs-20,000!’- towards loss of amenities. He was
~. iiraspitaliscd for 31 days, for which the claimant
entitled for another Rs.5,000f— towards diet and
ii ‘i itxzniicyance and Rs.3,000!’- toward-s afiendant charges. H:
i ivould be entitlw for another Rs.5,000{– on the head of pain and
suficrings. Hawever, he has baen suitably awarded on all other
heads. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to Rs. I 3,000./– with
W”
6% interest fiom the date of petition till deposit, o§fg:VfT’»s’1;ii¢’I_V_a)beve
what has been awarded by the Tribunal
8. Accordingly, appml is ‘
/_
Iudge