Karnataka High Court
Mirza Mujeeb Aga vs Dalbir Sing on 10 September, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1071* DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008
BEFORE
THE HOBPBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.AD!_' j
Mina Mujecb AGA,
S/0. Mirza Habeeb Aga,
Aged about 36 years, '
R/a. No.1, Arab Lane, 'B' Stmcl,
Richmond Tawn, " jg
Bangai-3rc~560 025. V - ..'A'PPELLANT
(By Sri. R. Jaiprakash, Advj VA "
AND:
1. Da1biVrSing;*'MaioI§4 %
Fafliefs nazxtevntit ., '
R] a. R-mad,'
Banga1ox'c¢5€"~O 025;; =
2. 'r1;¢j Oriental Co. Ltd.,
' V' Ratgioazfgal Ofice, Cell,
, 'R_¢:s:i;?1ency. M13. Road Cross,
025.
._I~"c'é'._p. b3*.i't3_ Rzagibnal Managt.-.r. .. RESPGNDENTS
(By Sriffl. 'SiAfbAra311anya, Adv. for R1
A. M. Vs':-akatesh, Adv. for R2)
This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of
" __ M'.V.Act against the judgment and award dtd.I0.01.2005 passed
T .M.VC.No.1533/99 on the tile of the XV Addl. Judge, Member,
._' V -- MAUI', Court of Small Causes, Mayohali Unit, Bangalore (SCCH
No. 19), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and
seeking enhancement of compensation.
-2-
This Appeal coming
on for Hearing this day, the Court
dciivcxed the following: '
This is claimanfs appeal for enhancement of
2. It is alleged that. claimant guficxcd road _
accident occurred on 2.5.1999 and cm
has suficmfi disabfiity and 1m; 'lQ§t t'I1'c 'c91"11I£1V "jg A=<;_apaci*'£y. A Ii»
support of his case, the - wound
ccrtificate. Ex.P7 * Exs.P8 to P25 -
medical bills. The gfiedical bins to the
tune of Rs.11,514)';}';;g_g"gg,;1g;d §";r§§,;:i'2;co;c/~ towaxds medical
expenses; tile Tribunal has awarded
Rs.13,oc.§/ during laid-up period. the
Tribunal has -. As far as loss of future
ca111ing.--capac1't3r_:V is-c<:oI 1<:cA1'*ced, since the appellant had not
S {the iitji*'V1)mduced any material to show that, he
no compensation is awarded under this
3. ~. Counsel for the appellant submitted that. the
V underwent surgery on 20*" November 2001 and he
."'%§va?A:?)§iI':1'§atit:nt from said date to 18.12.2001 and submitted that.
' "' has not awarded ccmpensafion towards medical
treatment and also towards loss of future eaming and 3033 of
amenities. »
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance':
submitted that, the Doctor is not examined nor:
evidence to Show that the appellant has
submitted that, the Tiibunal despite':.Athe:1e :ibeir.i1g""
evidence has gmnted compensati£:i1i.;'~~ 2 1 ii i
5. Doctor has not been ease prove as
regard to the disability "hyVi';-.f}.1e.'"eg'§;iei1ant. The surgexy
referred to by the 200 1 whereas,
the accident evidence to link
between tlie it) -naceixient and the surgery that has
been perfoniledi onitihe nearly more than 2 years.
in the absegee ef eeidence, it is dificult to appreciate the
igediit.e1;ifiez1 fiheappeii ' ' a "" i n' t. However, taking into consideration
ti{e.a;n¢@;:i§Ifs;;§¢fi§:gswaxds the medical bills and also the nature of
injury' the wound certificate, I feel it appropriate to
-. theitempensafion on the head cf medical expenses and
~;.§:e§ih¢{'.ehcads fmitn Rs.12,0{}D/- to Rs.25,0()0/~ and taking into
n '----e§iii$iéflerafion that the claimant has suffered injury, on the head
loss of amenities, the claimant is awarded another
V Rs.20.000/-. Since theme is no evidence as regard to the
M3
disability or loss of future earning capacity. 1 do not find there is
any justification to grant compensation on those heac1_S.»- i!_; this
case, considezring the matcriaf. on record, a
Rs.33,00()/- is awérdcd.
Accordiflgly. the Appeal is
cntitied for a total co1I1pc133a fi_(:)a'I:..V_ of AR3f§1.Qi){)/'§.;V"asV ";-against
Rs.?.8,000/-- awarded by the 'mbpn?.§;iv., .% V'
Sn'.A.M.Vcnkatesh is vakalath for
respondent No.23 .-' Ens u1a1§_cc weeks.
Sd/*-' Judge