Sri Umachagi D H S/O Hanumanthappa vs Sri Sanjeeva S/O D H Umachagi on 27 October, 2009

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27?" DAY OF OCTOBER 2.Qo§jeaee[a'

BEFORE _ _
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1propergtlo.. award. A. a l' stun of

Rs.5,000/~ towards medical ariid:"incidentalc-expenses and
accordingly. it is awarded ._ V

11. The learned co'unseii.__foi' asecond respondent

submittedvy.thatiA’thle respondent —- Insurance company
is not liable to “compensation. I do not find

any merit in this eontentionf for the reason, the policy was in

:_.«force, .secoAndvvrespondent has satisfied the award and

no.tappea_l’*-i_s’t preferred. Therefore, the second respondent

‘”.,,._t\V,Vcanno’ty__ll’contend_ that it is not liable to pay the enhanced

«. compensation and accordingly, it is rejected.

The total compensation payable comes to

V i%;s.’2Cl,00O–O0 and the breakup is as follows:–

L//.

6

(a) Towards pain & sufferings Rs.15,00C__)’/–

[13] Towards medical 81 incidental expenses Rs.

TOTAL

13. Accordingly, the appeaig f’:’a1iovfq’ed’.,v
impugned judgment and awardspagssed in
MVC.No.609/ I997, stanvdsggvgmodifiedj gt’anti1{g’vv.3otrfpensation
of Rs.20,000/–, instead *yfett:t_ interest at 5%
p.a., from the date’:of:~pet:;ti’o;r1′ realisation. The
second respoiiidetitggiffdshaii amount within eight
weeks frorri ‘t1ie_”‘VajrV1:ount already deposited.
The entire} released in favour of the
appellant. _v if A it if
V. _ ‘vthe a’\’}v’ar’d,’v accordingly.

Sd/~
JUDGE