High Court Karnataka High Court

Tejas vs Ravikumara H C on 29 July, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Tejas vs Ravikumara H C on 29 July, 2010
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAl,.OR{~i
DA'I"I:ED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF JULY :.201(:)

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUST1C1£ S. ABDUL NAzj§i51e' ff 

MISCELLANEO US FIRST APPEA L1_A1%\/0.5 .».t'_,Z::'/;r)_()__s'__2 'V   J 1:'

Between:

Tejas;.

Aged about 20 years'.

S/0 J z:ya:ra1n'1eg0w=dz'1.

Chfinuhulli Village,  '  

Hebbai Hobli, K.R.N;1geu'Ta1u.i.: Na@if;;_jL:L,§»V_A;;{£:§.j  

And :

I HE _Ru\xi§re Dis1'ric.l.



3 The United India [l1SUl'Lll1Ct'3 C0.,
Cha 1T1ai't'ij Llp{l1'2ll'll , M y :xm'e.

Rapid. By its l\/l:1m=1g;cr.  l{cspoiiclertt§:,, 

(By Sri S. Kcerthikttr, ;\/[SR A/S. Adv. for RE & R2
Sri PB. Raju, Adv. for R3)

This Misccllaiieous First Appeal is i"I'i,_L"(_i:".,ll1.(iCl' Seat. 1* 3<'«.l)iV 

the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988, £1§j_tli':1__\_'{ lhc'j,Ll(.lgt"llCt';Eiiiii]}§_§ll/V'£1{§d
dated 2(}.5.20(')9 in MVC N(i.l()3/Z(?v(:)7'--it)it [hC'--~i'llC. the Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, KR. i\i2lf.#I_£'I1"i'tV3"l-.{;v.' ~ " .. 

This Miscellaneotis F.i1fst_' Appimti hetjmiiraig» on for Final
Hearing; this day. the Court dciiveijcd the i"<:)ll.t)_w*i.t_i'g: 

   it  i

Sri PB. .R1}jLl.V, iflettfllfiiii Ciiunsel. is directed to take notice for

respondent ii'-lo  ,

‘2, _This ti”ppe’zi!.igvtlireetetii againset the judgment and award in

MVcffio.:,.i~-(1)3/2.t.)t)7 ti;i’ic~ti”2().5.2t’)t)9 on the file of the cm: Judge

‘V'(.Sl’:.VD,ll.V)’~”:K.R. l\Eaga1′. The appellant was the elaiimmt.

bCi'()Al’t.-,’,” the mt:i’t’_–l.)elow and the I’C.’6|)()lldCl’1[S were the driver- owner

i am the l1’l$_Llf€l’ 0!’ the offendiiig vehicle. There is no dispute as to

it

u

the occurrence. oi’ the accident and {he iiahility of the t’ln’i”r-:’l

re.sp()ndent ~ insurance Company to pay etn13ens21ti.e.n1@T ’13-e.’;~

appellant has filed this appeai seeking e.nh;Vtr_1CE:~::r.seIn:_t”~ of 3

compensation.

3. 1 have heard the learned C~t.r_n.~:e_1 for £’i:r:__pa1ftie~s;_. V

11;1r1t_\2xr.t)’u1cf’ contend {hat as

4. Learned Cousnel dthe
per EZx.P?., wottnti uhaditd’;;tri’§’er°e{1 grievous
injuries. He hm ‘1:;_t'<;':§A£t:tc7'.a.g:.:tag.tjica_t;;:';11'1'.1§ms,' worth Rs.39._i()1.2().
H0\veve1i._rthed hnly Rs.25,(){)0/~ towards
medical hilly' The "ean1per1sat.i(')n towards pain and

sui'ferr_:1';; '15 also on a"'10w=;:r Side. The court beiow has failed to

award c:0En*1')er1r;:,_1tit)t1 on any other heads. On the other hand,

%i"eat'n't;d Crjttsnelt'-afJpea1'i11g for the contesting respondents have

,~.;<)Lrgi'1–t, to..'_j"trIx't-EE7*y° the nnpugrted judgment and award.

ta

/