Shivakumar vs Vasudeva H Waddar on 26 September, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shivakumar vs Vasudeva H Waddar on 26 September, 2008

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

MFELNO. 633..'3.2OO5

.. 1 .....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUS'I'ICE 13.v.NAGAR;z*r2i;~:gg%-  1, ' 

M.F.A.No.63151goo5   F" %

BETWEEK:

SHIVAKUMAR _
S/O THIPPESWAMY = 
21 YEARS  "
R/O KURUBARA om
HARIHAR V "  
DIST DAVANAGERE 

. . APPELLANT

(By Sig: i5AsAvA§§;;jT'M_::M$r;m, ADV.)

 

  iizasitjaaava H WADDAR

, "S/'Q wHANUMANTHAPPA

" ~A$s;r sus INSPECTOR
KUMARAPATNAM RS.
RMEBENNUR TALUK Ur HAVERI

 AA 2 'A  BRANCH MANAGER

 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD
5 WALI COMPLEX SHIMOGA
ROAD HARIHAR

 RESPONDENTS
{By Sri: NEELAKANTH R M, ADV. FOR R1)
THIS MFA FILED U] S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DA'I'ED:28.S.05 PASSED IN MVC
N053-4102 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN)



MFA.No.6315.2005

.. 2 ..

AND MACT, HARIHAR. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION WITH INTEREST AT
13%. 1.

This MFA coming on for FINAL HEARING on  day,
the court delivered the fo11owing:--~  ' » V    V

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the the Judmcnt and Award I mcr, Harihar, dated 23.5.2ods.i%»:'

2. The mlevant factspf 22.5.2002 at about: 6.a.'_ii1§V was rﬁing his bicycle for dis1I'ib1A1'tipi1_of "he was passing near Mahesh 'I&aV{e1sf 'onRA«:.§.ad, Harihar, when the driver-cuxm V' - bf Hem I-Io«zViii£§1"1V:u<>to1' cycle bearing No. KA-27/J-3063 iigxﬁie aam gin a rash and negligent manner and dashed a' gem' " t's cycle, which resuited in the claunan' t sustaining injuries. He was admitted to Government A " .Hd§pita1 at Hat-1ha' r and thereafter he was shjﬁtcd' to Government Hospital, Davanagcre and than to Bapuji ' Hospital, Davanagcm for further treamxent. Contcnding that he had suffcmd parmaxwnt disahiﬁty as a result of the izziurins sustained in the accident, he ﬁled a ckaim petition aeeking compensation on=various hcms. 5} ' 2' MFA.No. 633.5. 2005 _ 4 _.

5. In support of his case, the claimant examined himsckf as PW.I and got marked Ex.P1 to P9 While the mspoz-igicnts did not let in any evidence except xnarlcing Ex.R1 ihe insurance policy.

6. On the basis of the above m.ater;ai~ " u 'awarded compensation of Rs.4,74'}?]- gt 5% pa from the data: of claim 1v~,:::ii$é:tj<:)n.'T; i~Iot * , being satisﬁed with the fawma m has PIefcrredthisapPca1. i .,,,,. '%

7. iihave Meklci, learned counsel for the appcﬁapt as M.P.Sﬁkant, ktarncd co1J::§$§:iL*for aécﬁéondimspondcnt * on behalf of the appcilant that the appreciate the nature of injnru:' 3 sustain' ed by and the fact that on account of the sad' was disability in as much as his h:cann' g was %% and that he was mxnitted in the hospital for a of six ciays anti despite the said facts being proved, the 'I'n'bunaI awarded meager compensation of only Rs.4,747/ - which rcqtﬁxes ent. g ' /.

MfFA.No. 6315.2005

9. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of thx:

counsai for the insurance company in support. judgment and award of the Tribunal that in there being any cormborative cvidsxiets; " . was justiﬁcd in awarding Q-whicﬁi does not call for any 3IIEf.f=5".'T_I'l':I1CV{"§'.V_i.IV'1 ; thcrcfcrc, requests this court

10. Taking note of ma: 'siibﬁiiasbn the "point that arises for my considmaﬁﬁh io appellant is eI13Jitl(§(i..

1 1. is hot on account of the accident, the to his ear and Ex}-'6, P7' to P9 Qgggart of the injurins caused to the ear. is no corroboration of the said evidence by ,;e'Eé§yV%<§f'z:::am1;' __ of a doctor so as to assess the d1sab' ility of the said" injury which has resulted in the not being able to way out his day-today activities " same coming in the way of his earning capacity. H--Iifnder the circumstances the Tribunal was justiﬁcd in not awarding any compensation on the head of has of future income or on the head of £033 of amenities. Hawever. the K1' *7 I'-'IFA.No. 6315 . 2005 _ 5 -

'I'rib1mal has not awarded any compensahion on the head of injmics, pain and suffcﬁng and also on inciicntal in as much as the appeﬂant was in--paticnt for a days, though in Government Hospital * cixcumstances compensation woulcihavc " 'A u these heads.

12. Taldhg note of the r L' the appellant had mken; a gkabal oompensatticn of Rs.15,"€}£§€);-'--_g§ the above heads. The the rate of @6p.aﬁmthe On the dmosit of th: ﬁx! to the .....

PWf1n' thcabovetcrms.

sal-

Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court