Vishwavijetha S vs H C Rajendra Kumar on 13 January, 2010

._gQ ' "A

 ,, (Dy..Sri.''O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13"" DAY OF JANUARY 2010
BEFORE

THE IIONBLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDAI'   

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.666/:aQ:()8jV'(1IIiV*jA I'   

BETWEEN:

VISHWAVIJE'1'HA.S.. V. _
S /O LATE SHABULINGA,-- 
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,  
R/AT BRAMIN STREET.  '
HOSAKOTE TOVVN_,"a_ f  ..
BANGALORE DISTRICT. =._  j. 
'- _  A   _ ...APPELLANT
{By Sn. L. HARISH ADVOCATE} ., 

I. II.'-.C."RAJENDRA~I:UIvIAR,
S /O..__S. P. C.HANDRA._S'HEKAR.
BRPs3~IMI1\Z~. STREET,' .  
,HO_SAKOTE"TAI.UK,
_~ '~:'.BANGALOR'I3« DISTRICT.

' ~ _ VI£¢I§fC.0;at'i0_n.' f£«'he1'-9fdr._e."'«Ciaimant will have to undergo

one more 0per.ati01i fer }emova1 of implants and some

. "pro\%'1as{0r§."an.eeds to }aexpi"bvided for future medical expenditure.

 I award a sum of Rs. 15,000 / -- towards

future merifcai, expenses.

 F'
A': *" "



5. As regards the compensation towards loss of

earning capacity andfuture loss Qf earnings is concerned, the

Claimant had not examined the doctor to prove  

of injuries and nature of disability. In the 

the Tribunal was justified in   'ela*i.rii._Tlor 

compensation towards loss ofrearnirtg ¢'t§I.pCLCilfl_}~'V.',.C1l'l,Cl'."_fttf'Ltl't3 V

loss of earnings.

6. REGARDINCJ  Tribunal has
dismissed the olairn agaiirist:  Company by
holding that___thle  Company did
not   was a pillion rider of

the motor cfyclel i-"m.-<r_)_plV\'2'v:t--*.d'  -- accident.

As coiild "beVVs_ee'11_lll'i'o:rn the copy of the policy if3x.R--l.

 ~.the»':iri~s1;red..y_had paid...p'remium not only to cover the risk of

V"1k'ti}i'I:;C.1l'_ also to cover own damage. In the

 ll hold that the policy did cover the risk of

pillion.  Therefore. I hold that both the insured and

A "insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay C mpensation.
. _ _. it

l\~a ~w-.¢a/w~ 



7. In the result, I pass the followings
O R D E R

{i} The Appeal is accepted in part;

(ii) The impugned award Jis»n’1odiili’e’ci;.– .1:

(iii} Compensation of K 4′
awarded by the Ti*ihu.nal V’ 2
enhanced to
interest at the 6%.’ p,a__H
from the—._._<.:i':pate of ipeltitiorrtill the

date of realis-atioiriil

UV] gri¢ti"' ordfll V — it relates
to Vl"rejectirig.iAl"el._f:i:iITil'–.p against the

llll H " « .. set aside:

[v}” p 1 and 2 namely,
.. ‘zinsVu’3_”ed–V_ insurer. are jointly
a1=1d__seve1″a1ly liable to pay the

compensation determined above;

‘pffhe payment and investment

shall be in the ratio evolved in the

impugned award; 5- ‘ Q
/ *3; ,/\.,,.«{?/L””””’ if :7

(vii) Parties are directed to bear their
/”V.

costs.

5;-3

%

RKK/–