Sanjay vs Udaykumar on 25 January, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sanjay vs Udaykumar on 25 January, 2010

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25:1": DAY OF JANUARY, 2010
BEFORE 'E'

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.   _

1VI.F.A.No.1596/2008 (MW

BETWEEN:

SANJAYA

S /0 MALLINATH PATEL

AGE:31 YEARS,

OCC:BLOOlZ) DIAGNOSIS

R/O KONNUR TQ;GoI<AI<"'   I I 
DISTBELGAUM.   _  fj;,..§'APP"ELLANT

(By Sri.SaI:1t0Sh SA.'Hattikéfag:i';Syicif._' "

   _ 

AND

I. UDAYKUMAR  I
S/0I.MALLII\.IATH PATH,
._'jAGE:MAJ0R,"CICCI:I3USINESS
 'R/O J.AIH__CIALLI, KONNUR,
'  "TQ:G0I§AI<,~DIST:BELGAUM.

2. I 'r<AMU--A:PPU ARAWADE3
"-AGEAMAJOR, OCC:OWN.E3R OF MC.
, AAIDBUSINESS, R/O KONNUR,
 I I TQ:'GOKAK, DISTBELGAUM.

   ISIATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD,

BY ITS SRDIVISIONAL MANAGER,
MARUTI GALLI, BELGAUM.  RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.A.M.Badige1', Adv. for R1 and R2, Sri.R.R.Mane, Adv for R3) This appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of«"l.'EV-._lAct against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2007«~~«pas.sed' MVC No.636/206 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and Add}. MACT Gokak, partly allowing the c1ain'1'~..,pet.i.tion for compensation and seeking enhancement. for cc_.inpe'ns_fation.' A. This appeal coming on for further:,'_otCiers',_ tlﬁis court delivered the following:

JUDGMEﬁTl This appeal is heard' f§.xlri:.th.l"thejlconsent of learned counsel for the p8:I"L'lC_3S. '1'he'"appel1ant_ is'.th:e'»'llc1aimant and he seeks enhancement5of_--co'1nper1sati.o1t,' .

2. Sriv,Sant.os'h:V .S_,i«!at'til{at_agi,_' learned counsel for the appellant s.1_bn1its has failed to award proper compensation tinder' thevheads of medical expenses, attendant clharges and loss of amenities of life. In this connection, it is appellant was in the hospital for 105 days and "t}.__1'1(3lEf,'.':\a'J(_3u1,':l_~'tA operation four times and has spent huge ' " . __amount for Ztreatrnent.

it ,l3.x_A=__S,;'i.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the Insurance ,..,,:Ch:,onl1pany submitted that despite the medical evidence of the ﬁr L4-J doctor and the disability certificate produced, the appellant is now in Government service as Junior Lab Assistantin-, the Health Department and therefore the question of further amount under any of the heads does not a:~.i__:s'e; in

4. Having thus heard both sides; ainid':.al§ing evidence on record and the reasons given by the Tfribunal i;vhi]e'=.g granting compensation under diff'eire'1it heads, '[*a.ir1'1 5;' the View "that towards medical exp'en_ses,."iamfurther.'sum (ijf'Rg,1g,5g5/- will have to be awarded the Tribunal falls short by as t«he'viimediicialibi11s produced by the appellants" s'¢m:ha:'y,g t'oyitardsvi"attebndant charges, in View of the long iperiuod 0ifi'iitr'e-atmeirititakeri and operation undergone by the claimant towardsiiratiteiridant charges, a further sum of Rs. f.- is awarded and finally towards loss of amenities of inA'~._liie'iniiiadacliitiongitov the amount given by the Tribunal Rs.5,000/-- the compensation gets enhanced by i it _Rs.3?i";'€>96../#.'v "The said amount shall carry interest at 6% pa it M ii awardis modified by allowing the appeal in part thus. 3?

5. As far as liability is concerned though the liability was put on the owner of the vehicle, learned counsel forothe Insurance Company admits that the policy was in.foree.'_a's.foin._ the date of the accident and therefore liability lthen ii Insurance Company. In View of the said' s1i,1.brr3.iss_ionV.Vn*1eidei,7 liability put on the owner of the Vehic§e7.i.siiset asicle end' it the 2nd respondent-Insurance Cvorinpany 'to 'pay the Wawarcl amount as well as the enh'&nced;afnoLi,flt.ii"

Jm/--

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court