High Court Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Manager vs Sri Margu @ Murugan on 6 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri Margu @ Murugan on 6 June, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
M. M, ;§o_§'23/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN@A.LQ_§;£: _' 

DATED TEIS THE ark DAY OF JUNE;    % T' '

BEFORE

THE HOPPBLE Qr. JUSTICE K."BHAi§THAygé;1fsALA'=--"."'~v  "

MISCELLANEOUS F’iRS’I’ Aié:5EAL 1~io.»123ug

BETWEEN:

The Sivisionai Manager,

M/s.’I’he Oriental 1nsu:~ance’Ac,;;,L:;1.’, __’ ‘

Divisional Office-‘?,

R/a.Nc:>. 1, Shankazf Hggnsg-_

Mekhxi Circie,
E5ax1ga1ore–80, -3 ‘

Rep. by its _ …. V’ ‘ig, ~
Admjnjstrairivc Omcgr,

The Oziental I1:>.s’1:ran” ‘ ”

Regionai O£:’fi;:>e,’- V __ ._ __
Leo Shopping ‘éipmplcx, 4′ ;
No.44/45, Residency RC;—ad’,=_
_1F3anga1t’§0 028′; ~

‘gay Adv.)

AN{}:

V ‘;. 1: V V V 1_. Szti. @

V S] o.Ja:aam:tath,

‘T 1 ‘ — .. Aged 25 yriars,
V. am. 1869, Near Water Tafik,

_ sangeavmmagar, 3rd Cross,
‘ Sahakaranagaza Post,

_Banga1oIe~55O 080.

.V Sri.B.M.Mahesh,

S] o.B.Madava Rat),
Major,

R/a.N0.2C, R10, 59/2,

. . .APPELLAN’I’

IR)

M.F4..AVVl\?g?}.23/2096

1551 Cross,
Mailcswaram,

Banga.:m~e-550 003.

(R-1 served and unrcpresenteci,
R-2 notice dispensed With)

This M.F.A. is mad u/s.17*3(1;_Vof MiEAc:1; agg_zixxsv:4..1.@e.’Judgment
55 Award dt.3.9.2()05 passed in MVC”No.52’73l2{)(_}.4 an the fiie of the
Judge, Court of Small Causes as Mémbar, Metzfopolitan Area,
Bangalore (SCCH-9), a;va;dingA*””cc;g:pe:-mation Rs.1,87,4~00/»
together with interest@ 6%_p’;a., th:.:”daie_ of petition till the date
ofdcP08it. . ” =

This M.F’.A.V <:om..i_ng {fan for..:onders~,..'ti:iis":A:Iay, the Court dciivcred
the fol1oW'iflg:~ 2 ' _ .

%%%%

‘§’hc:vV’i1p’p¢’:11faK1f) ” ix} MVC 510.5273] 2004 on

that file of ef Sméd1: Cuéiuses/ Additional M.A.C.’§’ at Bangalore

” ACoL1t£.under Section 1’73-( 1) of the Motor Vehicies

for setting aside the impugned Jutigment and

A Avéa;§i’dat§dVé3.G§;;’2o0s.

2. arguments.

“3; The brief facts of the case icading to the filing of the appeal

T :xi1ay be stated as Imcier:

M.F.AV:ma, 123/2006
But the Tribunal has fixed monthly earnings of me’ at

Rs.6,0{}O/ – per month.

10. For the reasons stated in ..t}1e.. ;4¥1.i”c1gI:;1ei2,t,& u

Tfibuna} has awarded compcnsatiofi”-113 3

under:

X L ass.

Pain and suffering V _ 15,909.00

Mcdicak expenses ‘$25,000-00

V .

iJ1juries 10,000–OO

Los’s~ ‘
(Rs.6′,fi}O{){– x._10% x. :7) 1,22,40o–o0

Fgltune m-s::¢a;.;:x§;;;;1g;§s 10,009-oo
“§’;;i:>’sssA’-c>f.”=z1;;c1eni’1′:iisAt:’é “” 5,00()~0O

Totai Rs. 1,87,4~O()~O(}

I1. §_£ fierfincnt to mention that the compensation awarded

” H ” “::§u’favQ;1I of £116 claimant is in accordance with Schedule fl appencieé.

163(A) of the Mentor Vehicics Act, 1988. The appcaant has

“attcély failed to establish before the Tribunal that the car was not

involved in the accident Under such circumstances, tilere is no

merit in the case of the appellant, The decision cited by the learned

L_.-%

M . EA N_Q,_123[2€}O6

counsel mndemé in Appa3’i’s case is not applicable to ~t§1€_ €2a$t2 on

hand. There is no good ground to entczrtajn the ‘ .

12. In the result, the appeal fai1s,_anci_ tfié”

dismissed.

bnv”*