Shamidsab vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 5 September, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shamidsab vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 5 September, 2008

Bench: K.Ramanna

 - Aw-.._ANDs5§   

IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAK;; ."  ' ', : : {T  
CIRCUIT BENCH AT l.}.!:IARWA_D"'"' : f;l   % V %
DATED Tms THE 5% DAY  j2<4>%o8[}=
BEFt;s2§  "    
THE HON'BLE'MR.JUf.:§I'ix{:3_E--.I{ R}sM§x1\;NA 
MFA   M H
BETWEEN:     ' .'  %V
Shamidsab    

S/0 Bucia;nasaib  ~ *1'
32 yrs, 000: 

r/o Htﬂihydar, 'tT3ra1:g'avati-- "
Dist: K<3ppa1_   2 

Appellant

(By Sxi. A n,_a"nd [Acav for Chandrashckhar P Patil,
L.Siddesh, Ad__\fs}_ _' ' " V. 

A V ' ' _ 2   Cpmxoﬂer
 W?»  VKOPP31

Nowballcé  
The Manag:in"gv,E)iIector

 V . NWKi'x"FC; Gdkul Road
  Hubli  Chief Law Oﬁcer  Respondent

Ravi v i-Iosamani, Prabha Murthy, Advs) This appeal is ﬁled under Section 173(1) of the Motor V' Véllicics Act, against the judwent and award dated 2--12~O3 passed in MVC No.58/O1 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), MAC1', Gangavathi partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This appeal coming on for heazing this day, delivered the following: I V. L" , A' .. JUDGMENT...

This appeal is ﬁkad byfhc ant judgment and award dated 2?"i'2ﬁ~2003. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & MACI', amount of Rs.35,0()0/- together \x}iVt'.b"Vii1téEi~est__.ﬁ t-- in me No. 58/ 200 1 of.

2. be ciisposed of by this Court ﬂan __ the compensation to Rs.1,29,2G~Q] R§;35,ooo/- azwarded by the Tribunal with ' §i'n't::1fcstua€ _ Assailing the said judgment and preferred an appeal before the Apex jggﬁpeal P€o.3111/2007. The Apex Court allowed thé elder dated 16-7-2007 setting aside the land award passed by this Court and remanded the VA for ﬂesh disposal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both Pafﬁcs and perused. the records.

4. The claimant-appellant met with an accidcVi1t"ttVhat occurred on 17- 12- 1999 during the course of his and sustained injuries as mentioned in the V' Ex.P-2. The respondent-insurer of tits the nature of injuries sustained k' certiﬁcate discloses that the appcﬂant was taken 'hospitﬁit i.E., Pnm' my Health Center, The medical oﬁcer has over the right cfbow and 'réstricted and lacertated wound of the swelling. X~ray taken Iéxteﬁts Vtht (Sf the riglgt elbow joint and mate;-a; malﬁngm. No doubt the appellant initially trca txinitzxit-----at Pnma1y' Health Center, Kanakagm ', 1999, unfortunately, he has not produced maintained by the hospital to prove that " .'{}.€ ttngiérgonc tzcattnent for one month. Dxnvishwaprasad V' '.,:fwiaV.st"exa1Vr'xined by the appellant as P.W.2 in order to show the ' of disability suﬁércd by him on account of the '4 tittjuxics sustained by him in the road accident. E)r.Vishwa Prasad has issued éisability certiﬁcate marked P.W.2 in his evidence has stated he.".ttés--:','p1';;'n"=1ca'vi' " 2 exaxmn' ed the appellant but not taken cross examined at length by the respondents'; 01' * has denied about the fotlow by the appellant 5 ~ 6 times as has clearly observed in its judgment produced X-my taken not. Health Centre or Governngent have undergone the tre'atment--,_as ._ae3 xnonth. The appellant has not made any ntteinpt E3-yt 'f't1i.*t§"'-ttniettttapplieation to summon those _ Vinpat:ie:;1t"1'ecoItts:» _I_Vt"i"s that the appellant herein has not the A summary issued by either e»e.nifi:vate nursing home. The plain reading of t Ex.P-2 indicates that there is dislocation of and bilateral fracture of mallinus. The appellant only 13 medical bills for which the tr1a' 1 (301111; rightly awaniﬁ compensation of Rs.5,000[~ towards V Lrmedical expenses. In a case of simple fracture sustained by any person like the appellant, would be uniteti within a oouple of ',,..

when he examined the appellant. It is vexy the d1sah' ility by exa1n1nm' ' g the paﬁent' izetx 9 j made clear in his evidence as to tfge sustained by the appellant is -fer ofto the %? whole body. P.W.2 in 4 o:f_.tJ;;1iev.depesit:.ibi1--has_.§,tated that the appellant suﬁers my disability. In the absence of ngnfpmducigzéj'; at the time of accident, it be only 10°/o of the of the appellant is taken R.3_.':A7A(§Vj ---." the permanent disability at 20%, and eppellant at the time of accident, if proper ainplicd, the compensation under the "head" 1653 .91' ﬁ;n%}m earning capacity would be '"Rs;:;e1bc$;':e2§::6;:,i9/ 190 = Rs.40,320/-. In all, the appenam is enﬁxled as against Rs.35,009/-- awarded by the ' r Hence the appeal is allowed in part The judgment and passed by the Tribunal is hereby modiﬁed. The uifoompezxsaﬁon awarded by the 'l'ribunaI at Rs.35,0{)O/-- is enhanced to Rs.78,520/--. The appellant is entitled to the

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court