IN mm HIGH mom or KARHATAKA
cmcurr nmccn asr nnmwm ” %% %’ V
DATED mm mm mm mm? or mnRuA§i?,V 3
nmmnlfi
THE Hon’nL.=.r. MR. .m_sfr1cE- figs. nqrfmfina
M.F.A. no. 1o1ii[2.oo6
TIMMANNA HANAMANT HA§IAG,AiIij1M–~«.] ”
AGED ABOUT 39_}’–Y_EARS” % ‘- ;
OCC:C{)OLIE ‘
R] 0 Yamwzm,””f2m;K–».(}QKAKL-_,,%
9131’ B,ELGAU:;«r_
. .. APPELLANT
(BY SR1 HARISH ‘S _§;1:Ai»{§t3j§é,VADv.)
V. 1; . x’A§v§§AN:0QR YALLAPPA KHANPET
* T “AGE-,_ MAJOR
._ R/”c).’1a:13L§0″D, TQ GOKAK
A _ ‘DIs’r.B¥;_3.GAUM
K__:2 TEE ‘QRIENTAL INSURANCE co LTD
.A REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
% ‘SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAB
‘ BELGAUM
. .RESPON[}ENTS
(By Sri : M VISHWANATH RAI FOR R 1
Sri: ELL. PATEL, ADV. FOR R2)
.L
“2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) 014′ AGé;1Tri3_;4′
THE JUDGMENT mm AWARD DA_T.BE__ 30f’12]20_m’.I5″‘~PIaSS3D’ _
IN we NO.2317/02 on THE FILE 0;?’ “FI~i”E 3:1–.Am>;;Q1wL %
JUDGE(SD) 85 ADDL MAC!’ BELGAU1a4,*~PAR*rLY. bALLG\HiNG
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPE?{$ATIONV.v2§3§D sE}f§KiN(;,
ENHANCEMENT OF CoMPEN’sAfI*;QN. ”
THIS APPEAL CO4ih:»vIVIFyiG”V”(.}R’I)ERS THIS DAY,
THE comm DELI.VERE1)..T_HE F€)ALLOW.ING§;” ”
The is before this Court seeking
enhancemé13.1_:Of as against the sum awarded
_ by th1fg’AdLtiition§éii Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (for
Sam; mg ¥Ar:»1AcT3 in MVC No.23}?/2007.
2, = the learneei Cormack for the parties and
” H ‘A ‘ ” appeal papers.
3. In respect of the injurkts suffered by the claimant in
the accident which occurred on 5.9.2002, the AB/{ACT has
awarded the global compensation of Rs.15,0{)()/~ .
l
‘v
4. While seeking enhancement of the compensa:f:iz; n,V_ the
learned Counsel for the appellant would conteiid
coxnpensation awarded in the mannezfes do1ke’by.:”1:a.
inappropriate and in any event, V. ‘
under the conveniional heads .;’__g on” .’I_:v1’1’-:’~: aide ”
same calls for enhancement.
5. The learned u:cVT’7%r§§is;a¢ndents sought to
iusfifir the a’v_’?:§’i”}1e:e:. by “:~V’iha_’.£::’ in the absence of
ea.§id’VVevidei:iCe;’V:the AMACT was justified.
6. the wiiat has been centended, a perusal of
‘~ that in respect of the injuries send’ to
L’ _ by the eiaimant, the documents at
EXHSQPIQ and P69 have been noticed by the AMACT.
Tho{1g11;”§l!1e1x’e is reference to the fracture of the shoulder and
V. the was examined as P.W.9, what requires to be noticed
is that he is the common witness in the connected matters and
manner in which the disability has heen stated to the
lumbar spine does not inspire eonzfidence. However,
2
conslxicring the fact that the claimant had
injuries including the fiacturc to the shoulaziczfi ,
recontis ought to have been considé;;ed:.zi1§.(i ”
have awarded the appmpfiatc.cx3mpefi:A§ition fa_:;’:t.Vti:at,
the claimant had suffered a cannot be
disputed. Since the suficicnt
pain and sufferizlg it would be
appropxiatc aiéuzfi towards pain and
sufi”er.ing. V V V
fhat the claimant had suflisrcd
only a ‘iaospitalization was not for many
= d_ays,u ‘it be appmprjatr: to award a sum of
medical expenses as Well as food and
noafiishfi¢¢§§t;.–;_ “That apart, though as already noticed, the
stated to the lumbar spine and the c}a1man’ t
‘A x V’ injury to the shoulxier, even though the disability
s’i:a1t ::’ci in the manner camxoi be reckoned, the disccamfort at
T ” léést Wouid have to he noticed. As such, under the heads of
L
discomfort and loss of amanities, a further sum 0i.7~«E9.fi51iE”7f’,;t3tf’!§V3″.”..f
is awarded.
8. Thcncfore, in all, the ¢om1§tn§§afion be”
of R3.50,(}()O/~–. Since the ‘Va smzfi.’
of Rs.1S,00()/–, the c1a’:i.1mant_’f éii§1§€§1j;1i1 t.._wo1i1ci”‘b(éV:en$:it1cd to
the enhanced interest at 6%
ya. from the The enhanced
portion of deposited by the 2″‘
1esponffléiit~’- a period of six weeks
from éopy of this wder. On such
deposit, to the claixnant.
‘ ” _In_’af the above, ‘tin appeal stands disposed of with
35/7*
Indde