IN THE HIGH COURT or CIRCUIT BENCH Dated this the 3rd day ¢:VN¢§ember%2(S0S PREQENT THE I-IOIPBLE am AJ;xs1*IC$Vi§1:v%s21;Y1}5n"rmm;§i-{Hagan ms !i()fi€'§LE:i§lR 3 Am f;é"7'§1 ofgoos IMVI SUl.RAP_P-A NA.2AYzaN L0'1"i.I_L§§.AR AGED :29 YEARS;QCC:'A,GE2lCULTURIST, R/O JATA.GE,*HA'LAS_AL. _POS'I', KHANAsP1_JRTAL¥}K'._ BELGAUM D1S'I'RIC'1"" APPELLANT .A [Bf Sfiéiddappa S Sajjan Adv for Sri Ravi G Sabhahit] 'i.AXiidA?¥"ISHWAR HANAESAR MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS, AA [ R/('LMANGALWAR PETE ' "AT : POST LONDA, KHANAPUR' TALUK, " ._B.ELGAUM DISTRICT THE NEW INITJIA ASSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER RESPONDENTS
[By A N Krishnaswamy, Adv for R-2;
R» I served]
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) 0}? MV ms.
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.9.2002 pA’s_sE::«._us: M/c’~
010.1553 00 2000 on THE ms OF’ ms PRL. CI’.»’iL.=IUDG~E (~SR.DN}..
AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM; ~PAR’13LY MAL;Lf;f~Wii*€_C3;. THE ‘;
cuss sermon ms corv:PEr§sA’:f1:;>z~; zmD._ ‘-.,sssrgm;3
ENHANCEMEN1’ OFCOMPENSATION. ‘ ‘ * ~
“ms APPEAL COMING F01?HEARI§I0}§._’THI.S–‘3 Dam’
sxmmnm gums, J., DEL1vsRE;0_*ms F0L:,0w0;:aG:;
This appeal Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 1303i 1553 of 2003, on
the file V01? Claims Tribunal,
Belgaurs, in 0t1300§.udg111ent and award dated 27-9–
2002. dissatisfied with the total –
compcfjisafion 036,640/-, which the tribunal has
0′ of the appellant-claimant in resperct of
by him as 9. result of the accident
V -V11″:vo1″ii11′;g’-~’:1ai1s”fm0tor cycle bearing Regn No KA-~22 ~ L-4109,
hit by a truck bearing Regl No KA~22 — 677
in the opposite direction on the 7th Februaxy 2000
“–«::ét”012. 15 pm on the Kapoli–Madigunji road near Diggegaii
3%
cross while the ciajmant was riding his motor eyeie from
Gunji to Jatage in Khanapur taluk of Beigaum V,
2. As 3. result of the collision between :”tw’o
the motor cycle was damaged, ti3e”i’idet_ T.
suffering fracture on the right pateilzaiatid
below the eye and another the
3. It is the version Vofzthe he was admitted
to a hospitai at..vLonda”‘ot2::’the._sa.ej;e where he took
siiifted to the district hospital,
Be1gaum§”a;1d.e%hew_}§e$~%§i’xt,ifi’#15atieI1t from 8-2-2000 to 25-2-
2000 eurgery for the reparation of the
axsocltmmed that the ciaimant had incurred
sum of Rs 15,000/~ by way of medical
V’ _ expe’13se:§;’ -that the accident has caused permanent
H H u to the claimant and that he was {Enable to move
as eariier and therefere put forth 9. ciaim for 3. sum
T et’Rs 6,oo,oeo/–.
4» In support of such claim, the
documentary evidence in the fe1*n’z–of
documents were marked
company has marked a ‘Ne
oral evidence was adduced d I
5. It is on the tribuna}
had payable in
favour of heads. Towards
fractuteedafd cdedcensafion of Rs 315,000/~ is
awarded ” simple injuries, a sum of Rs
3,Oi4}§3f–c..is ‘I;he tribunal has awarded a sum of
dd%cas »5,<jé;e,/ge«.%eaga:x:s£ the claim of Rs 15,000/~ by the
medical expenditure, and hospitalization
chairgesj confined to Rs 3,600/~ and under the head of
_ and loss of amenities etc., a sum of Rs 20,000] –
. was 'awarded.
T It is being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded under the above heads, the present appeal by the
injured claimant.
‘fgé. The insurance company though had
contended that it is not due to the negligent ‘xjash
driving by the driver of the truck the accident”
due to the riding of the motorcycle, dd
appears, has not pursued the ddfet’ti”.;er,
the claimant alone had comemto, appeel
seeking for enhancemenjt of the
S 2 We have Sri ‘Stddappja_ learned counsel
for _ the records.
‘in ‘The dfétcte above, particularly, the fact that
V’ –the’:t.(,foneluei,on ti’1e”n*ibuna1 that it was only the driver of
‘V was responsible for the accident which
reSn_Ited- to the claimant and his hospitalization
SQLQOOO to 25-2-2000 etc., are all not in dispute and
A of compensation should be decided on such
…pfemise.
6
10. We ftifld that the quantum of Rs
against injury, pain, sufering ete., in respect,
and other injuries, is on the
proper to increase the same.e’Eo__.Rs’A30;’GOO
this, We have neticeci that the
Claimant to remain fer not less
than 17 to 18 days. expenditure for
payment of as the claimant
has of Rs 5,040/-, while it
has to “is, we find some scope for
enhancement ..:Voi’- cdinfiensafion under the head of
.AiI0ui’ieI1irierit;t’_atte1’§§iei’:ce charges etc., from Rs 3,600/– to
regard to the factum of 18 days’
‘ _ at a place away from his native place, which
H H ” tieeeesitated an attendance also to be present with him.
A’ tlnder the head ef disability and loss of futzire income
V’ “;=a;’r1d also under the head of loss of amenities etc., we find it
is a fact that the claimant has suffered a fracture which
definitely causczi a loss in futme also and under _
pui: together, while the tribunal has gstimatcfl’
20,000] –, we deem it proper to cnhafice t’-_.:xe ~
12. In the rcsult, wt; z;}11o£=a?«..V”ihi.:§:_:’–aj:2._::§ea1 E11-.par§It and the
judgment and award stands modified,
enhacning the ~~:éi’V})”<)ve. The amount
as mdetermiué{i'tot£{i éfimpéfiéafion of Rs 80,040]–
{Rupees
13. xi}’.’§l’S’1V1I’8I§{“f’.» is directed to deposit the
difi’erem.:eL of lfiéfore the tribunal within 3. period of
‘ . °s§1§; tliefldéité bf receipt of a copy of this judgment. In
including the rate of interest and investment
c$§:’.,__j£he and award of the tribunal stands as it is.
Sd/-~
Judge
sa/-:_
*pjk Tudge