" '-A,ND :._ " V.
IN THE men ooum' OF KARNATAKA AT BAH _GA:: 1,91 fag ? '
DATED was THE 261'" um Amnrsqj
PRESENT1 :fod5 (MVJ
BETWEEN: a % i V' 1' 'L
suBRAmNy}a'
AGED ABOUT 39ir1;a;2s ~
s/0 LATESUNiDfiRRA;J % %%
R/AT NCL15, aRAs1:r:gu;3AR;%T%JA_ %. %
oPP.BxNi«:_y M1L;,s __
BANGALORE:-560 0'23 . V APPELLAM'
(By Sxji: J51 Kt}bzA;§,'ADv;;
" ":,J.si--x(ALim;3A;:a
MAJ0:::_m.A<;E. szo LINGE GOUNDER
. "R/AT 1653.26 {A}. KARUPPUMAN om
FINGER UBHAGAM-ANDALAM
(ofr'mcAMANDU), THE NILGHEIS.
1'Ai'={iLNADU
52 ins./s tmrran INDIA INSURANCE comm»? LTD
" REGIONAL OFFICE: N025,
SHANKARANARAYAN BUILD!NG,
M.(3. ROAD. BANGALORE~56O 001
REPTD BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER RES»-PONDENTS
(By Sri : A M VENKATESH. ADV. FOR R2}
This MFA filed u/aoc 173 (1)_p£
judgment and award dated: 14.10.f2004"p_assed:' in
534/2001 on the file of the xxx Ad;il.Srnagl'. ۤaus::s" .1<x:ig:s
M.A.C.'I'.. Banwlore (sash-17}, partly '~p¢t:iticn
for compensation and seeking enha1}cenw'n§df' comyéizfgmign.
This appeal coming on .1}eamg,"'t21i§'Tci;ay,:'ApssrAx
VERMA,-L, delivered the fol1awir1g__;
Heard Sn' the appcumt
and Sn' for zcspondcnt
bean! and the moozds
The in appeal seeking t of
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
g 1wcved' and dzssa' usficd' with the ma
passed by the Motor Acct!' mm Glenn' :3
('the MACT' far short) whmeby the
" awarded a sum of Rs.1,27,000/- for the
to have been sufired by the appcihnt in a mean" mad
V V " 9» '4 "»aoc:,11dcnt together with interest at the rate 018% p.a@
'B
3. Certain material facts which are not i:z :aiiaep§§£t§
013. 23.5.2000 at about the
driving the cauaer * %
Bangalore to Nanjangud wtu.-mg
Norm-43-62o6 being am
ncgfigcnt manner, the vehicle.
Before the ovwnex' of the
mum' vcmcae agigimaé and it was insured
with India Aasmi (30. Ltd.
The % by respondcnt No.1 and
insure}, Issue No.1 was ti writh
driving of the buy and the
in favour of the appellmt vide pains
impugned award wherein' a '
been recorded by the MAC!' that the accident
% éajused due to rash and negfigcnt driving of the buy by
owned by respondent No.1 and insumd with
‘4″‘.V1.’véspondent No.2.
“Tc’~!>
4. On the stnmgth of the evidence of ‘
the medical evidence, he has
§sL1,27,000/– awinst the ”
The: I’OCOId$ reveal that he V to V
Myaam. .The1eaftcr he smfla ‘<:e1y=ge"iiasspinla1 when
he was in-patient tbr c::r1fica' in
is at Ex.P-4 and $3.'-zcj; is at Ex.P8.
The shaft and tight
finnur, — lcfi: mactatax-ad bone.
Apart he had also sustained
several m.S.U.S -PW.2
V was” the extent of pczwcnt disability.
the: doctor, permanent dual)’ ility aufii-.-red by the
1 Tfflv: limb is to the exmt of 4096 but as
m%hc whole body, it is 20%. However, the mar
h.
we are of the oonaiclcnzd opinion
Rs.2,50,000/— in all would ‘tlgc cfidgoxihus A
the amount awmticad by__ the is ‘G3 cxmnt
that the appellant from the
Rs.2,50,000/–. aha carry
interest at from: ‘1’ of the pcmm ° an
Th¢.: 9pp¢:al: % V “gta1zd_ to thc extent mc:n£1uned’
% % – A_ is certified at Rs.2,000/–.
Sd/-
Judge
Sd/-
Judge