IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the A) day of ovember 2011 BefOre. THE HON’BLE v1RJLSTICE 11’dNAGA\1 HAN DAS Miscellaneous First Appeal No23634/2O 1 O(MV) BET\V ELN: ANGAD S/O VITHALRAO AMBEDKAR AGE 33 1 EARS. CCC: BUSINESS RC) SIDDAPURGALLI. MLDHOL DIST: BAGALKOT. N N 13: N. iJ.MES.H E.AS2PPA SHED.F.GA.L.1 .AG•E: MA.JOF., 0CC: BUS Ii. T ESS. :2: BRANCH I CHAMPA BUILDING, 3128, KHADIBAZAR, BELGAUM. 3 ThE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKSRTC BELGAUM DIVISiON BELGAUM. ...Respondents (By Sri SHWAKUMAR BADAVADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRi V.R.DATAR. ADV. FOR R2 Ri NOTICE DISPENSED.) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 23.7.2010 passed in MVC No.21&’2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal NO.VI, Jamkhandi. This appeal coming on for orders this day, the court delivered the following: JUDGMENT In this appeal the appellant has called in question, the Judgment and Award dated 23.7.2010 in MVC No.218 1 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Jamkhandi sitting at Mudhól. r 2. The grievance of the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Ex.P84 is the wound certificate produced by the appellant and the same specifies that there is fracture of left wrist. PW.3 is the Doctor who gave the disability certificate as per Ex.P2. The injuries specified in the disability certificate are not found in the wound certificate. Even the evidence of PW.3 is contrary to the admitted wound certificate, ELP84. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW.3 and disability certificate Ex.P2. As per the wound certificate there is only one fracture to the left wrist. Having regard to the treatment taken and in the absence of medical evidence, the Tribunal granted Rs.20,000,- as global compensation and I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd! JUDGE Dkb