SRI C K NAGABUSHANA v. THE MANAGER
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. I have gone through the judgment and award passed by the claims tribunal. The claims tribunal found that X-rays were taken three months after the accident. Wound certificate Ex.P3 did not indicate whether x-ray was taken to conclude fracture. The appellant has taken treatment…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY MFA No.6827/2011 (MV) BETWEEN : SRI C K NAGABUSHANA S/O KRISHNAMURTHY R/AT NO.9095/8, 14THMAIN E BLOCK 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560 021 ( BY SRI P MAHADEVA SWAMY, ADV. ) ...APPELLANT AND : 1 2 THE MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERALINS. CO.LTD., R.C.PRESTIGVE CORNICHE, NO.62/1, 2ND FLOOR RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE 26 SRS TRAVELS PROP.K.T. RAJASHEKAR NO.325, T.S.R. ROD, OPP. BMC KALASIPALAYAM BANGALOER 2 ...RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED: 06.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.4373/2010 ON THE FILE OF XX ADDITIONAL JUDGE & XVIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE 2 CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Appeal by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the judgment and award dated 6.4.2011 in MVC No.4373/2010 on the file of M.A.C.T at Bangalore (ACMM-18).
The claims Tribunal has awarded a sum o Rs.45,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-.
The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant sustained fracture of 1st metatarsal of right foot, POP was applied to his right foot and he was treated as out patient for two months. Considering the wound certificate and X-rays the tribunal ought to have awarded more compensation and the amount awarded is too inadequate needs to be enhanced. 3
The learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the amount awarded by the claims tribunal is just and proper and there is no scope for any enhancement.
I have gone through the judgment and award passed by the claims tribunal. The claims tribunal found that X-rays were taken three months after the accident. Wound certificate Ex.P3 did not indicate whether x-ray was taken to conclude fracture. The appellant has taken treatment as an outpatient. If really he had sustained fracture, he would have taken treatment as an inpatient. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the tribunal has disbelieved the version of the appellant that he had sustained fracture. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the the judgment and award passed by the claims tribunal is justified and there no scope for enhancement. 4 The appeal is accordingly rejected. Sd/- JUDGE akd*
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.