IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD Dated this the 4 day of August 20 1 1 Before THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA MiscellaneoUs First Appeal No.701 9,/200$ (MV) BETWEEN: Sri. \‘.Veerabhadrappa 5/ o. Late 1< Vishwanath. Age: 57 veors, 0cc: Teacher. R/o. D. No.161, L.L.C. Colony. Main Road. Cantonment. Bellarv, Appellant (By SriJ. E3asavarj. Advocate) AND: Sri. 1K. Survanaravana S/o . Mareppa, Age: 40 years, 0c (h nti ol Car No k 34’ \l-3007 R/o. D.No.25, Ward No.6, kakarla Thota, Be TI a rv, 2. M;/s. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., rep. By its Divisional Manager. Bellarv, . . . Respondents (By Sri.Laxman B. Mannodar. Advocate for R2, Ri is dispensed with) This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 1/3/2008, passed in MVC No.825/2007. on the file of the 5th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bellary at Bellary partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation. This appeal coming on for orders this day. the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT This appeal is by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Heard. The appeal is admitted and with the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are referred to in the claim petition before the Tribunal. :3: 4. As there is no dispute regarding injuries sustained by thë claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 29.3.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of Innova Car bearing No.I{A-34/M-3007by its driver and liability of the insurer of the said vehicle, the only point that remains for my consideration in the appeal is: Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper or does it call for enhancement? 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the award of the Tribunal. I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper, it is on the lower side and therefore, it is deserved to be enhanced. 6. As per Ex.P5 wound certificate. the claimant has sustained three injuries i.e. fracture of radius lower third right. tenderness near right knee and left side of chest, X-ray discloses fracture radius lower 3M whereas :4: X-ray of chest and knee have not disclosed any fractures. Injuries sustained by him are also evident from oral evidence of the claimant examined as PW.2. Doctor is not examined regarding nature of injuries and disability suffered. 7. As Global compensation of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by th& Tribunal is not just and reasonable I reassess and award following: 8. Considering nature of injuries a sum of Rs.20.000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. 9. In the absence of production of medical bills a sum of Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses. 10. In the absence of evidence of doctor regarding disability, he is not entitled for compensation towards loss of amenity and future loss of income. I I lhus. laimant is entitled tar total (ompansal ion 01 Rs.25.000 as against Rs. I 5M00 a\\arded b\ th Tribunal. I 2. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the jtidgment and an ard of the Tribunal is modified to the extent statad herein above. The claimant is entitled for ,25,o!- f/ total compensation of 2,OOO s Rs. 1 5J)O() a\vorded In tha Tribunal with interast al p.a. from the date of claim petition till the data of realisanon 13. The Insurance Co. is directed to deposit the additional nompen sation amount v ithin two months from the date of receipt of a cops of this jridginant and the same is ordered to be ralcased in favour of the cluinanL. :6: S 14. Sri. Lakshman Mannoddar is granted three weeks time to file Vakalath for the second respondent — Insurance Co. No order as to costs. Sd! Bs 3TJjfl