2 I .. _ V BANGAIIORE-21
2 fmE"'uNI'r%:i:5"IND|A INSURANCE co LTD
I A' _Fi'EP.BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
' (§§}*ySn'1t. HARINI SHIVANAND, ADV. FOR R2)
SECTION 'I?3('I) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE
IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALvCV)?.I_-:7.
DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY 01:" JULY -.
PRESENT S3 flffl?'£' I
THE i-IO¥\I'BLE MRS.JUS"'I"ICE MANJULA_(3HE§gL,1)'R: _z T'
AND « ._ A I
THE HONBLE MRJUSTECE K.N.§<ESI§§AVAIQA,I§P.Yfi.NAT.I,,,{A
MFA No.3434x2oo5(Myj A I'
BETTNEEN:
THGMAS VARGHESE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS __
SZOCGVARGHESE
RIa¢:117,KoLATH;Ji2,_;_AYc5uT"w, _
JALAHALLIPOST'
BANGALORE.1.3;--.. :; - ~ '
2' ...APPEI_E.ANT
(By Mzs.LAm:gRsI:<;§T1I'A;Qv§_§_T ', T:
AND '
'E MCHANDRA' V
MAJOR; * I
; vwo C R SUBEQAMAIIIYA
R50': 42, SUBRA.MAt\IYANAGAR
SRIRAMAPURA,
» ' MANAMIDIACDURT, # 345171101
2??" C8388, 3"' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR
8AI53C':AL€)RE~11
RESPONDENTS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
JUDGMENT AND AWARD EDATED 1.2.2005 PASSES IN MVC
NO.21 25191 ON THE F ILE OF THE MEMBER, PRL. MACT AND CHIEF
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE (SCCI-I-1)
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
Dr.P.t~tiran}enmurthy as f-‘-‘W2, He got marked Exe.P.t
Respendent No.2 did not teed any oral evidence.
copy of the Insurance Policy in respect of the Cat. i
marked as Ex.R.t.
3. After hearing both sideeifithe Ie’e:ned.VVbn1en*it§é’r'”of: the * i
Tribunal, by the judgment under ap,ee:aLi–he!d that ttie..eccident was
due to the negiigence of -.The Tribunal hetei
that the claimant hesV_.faiIer:5″to».p§o\re .thet”.he any fracture.
The Tribune! §.§rc=_i,.rV.nd_..cefiiticeternarkeid as t-:x_P.4 on
the that the claimant has
suffered;iVfracttirév::ifV discharge summary produced at
Ex.F’.6 doaot sheer.«any-e_fichL”fracture. On the basis of this, the
Tribune! helctuthattheciai-rnaht has sustained only simpie injuries,
ateardedVia””‘totaI compensation of Rs.5,400i- under
ryeaiioize
4.iB.eing dis-satisfied with the said award, the claimant has
A Cfpiiteee-nted this appeal, interalia, contending that the Tribunal has
‘ not property read the contents of Ex.P.6, though the contents of
“EHx.P.6 clearly indicates that the appellant was treated for
Lindisplaced medial condyle fracture of left femur. Therefore, the
K’?
@/
has failed to read the evidence placed on record properly.
Therefore, the finding in this regard is erroneous.
11. Having regard to the contents of Exsi-Zél i?’;6,xi’ti’tere’..’i _A
is no difficulty in holding that the ciairr-;*ziia%it”i:ai;i ‘sustaijned_fracture”:
and he was treated conseNativ¥~:iy”‘for the “said _frar;’tu’re’;’v~tHe*’jwas * ‘
inpatient oniy for two days. Thereiiijis._no.._coni.}incing eiridence to
show that the appeiiant “‘–§o’e:ii1a,nent disability on
account of fracture. Howeve-attireVoraitieiritierice’ of PW} coupled
with the for a period of 45
days. he cone: Ex.P.9 is the salary
certificate H-“leave certificate issued by
Renaissaiice’* “Private Limited, in which, the
appetraniis ii.éoeri;iing.t.’r i V V
‘§’~:.12f,iAV’t-lairinslré§a.rdto the nature of the fracture suffered by
apgoellantgitreasonabie to hotel that atleast for a period of 45
eras not in a position to attend to his regular work.
-V Therefo.rev,.AVtie entitled for reimbursement of toss of leave for the
days. According to Ex.P.9 the saiary certiticate, the
apipeiiam was drawing a salary of Rs.3’r,2oor. pm.
&/
vrnv*
pa. from the date of petition tiii ithe date of payment. Revspfifidgnt
No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directfea’
the enhansed compensation togefiwer with costs a.nC,5’V:’m.teréjsft >
eight weeks from the date of receipt of §opy of thi’-s_ ordefl: * ‘ J