Partly allowed

Puttaswamy v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2012MFA/6528/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the motor accident compensation appeal after condoning a six-month delay. The Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Trial Court by Rs. 40,000 with interest and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount.

What did the court decide?

Delay conduced; compensation enhanced by Rs. 40,000 with interest; first respondent to deposit amount within three months.

Puttaswamy Vs the Branch Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

Dated: 1st day of August 2012

¶4

Before

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice HULUVADI G.RAMESH

¶6

M.F.A No. 6528/2011 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Puttaswamy, S/o. Range Gowda, Aged 41 years, R/o. 1^st Cross, Aduvalli Extension, Hassan City. …APPELLANT

¶9

(By Smt.Kavitha, H.C)

¶10

And:

¶11

The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Co.Ltd., Manjunatha Complex, Bus Stand Road, Hassan 573 201.

¶12

Vijay Kumar, major, S/o. Kanthe Gowda, Laxmisagara Village, Boovanahalli Post, Hassan Taluk. …RESPONDENTS

¶13

(By Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao for R-1)

¶14

¶15

¶16

This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V.Act against the Judgment & Award dated 4-8-2009 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & Addl.MACT,Hassan, in MVC No.729/2007.

¶17

This M.F.A coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following: -

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Misc.Cvl No.15489/2011 is allowed and delay of 627

¶20

days in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the condition that claimant is not entitled for interest for the delay period on

¶21

the enhanced compensation, if any.

¶22

Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶23

This appeal is by the claimants against the Judgment

¶24

& Award dated 4-8-2009 passed by the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & Addl.MACT, Hassan, in MVC No.729/2007 for enhancement of compensation.

¶25

On 25-8-2006 when the claimant was walking on Hassan-Salagame road, motorcycle bearing No. KA 13 R 3728 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous

¶26

¶27

¶28

injuries. He took treatment in the Government Hospital at Hassan. In the claim petition filed, tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle and awarded compensation of Rs. 56,200/- under different heads. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement.

¶29

The claimant has sustained fracture of mallelous right

¶30

and other injuries. Despite treatment, the claimant suffered 10% permanent disability to the right leg. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries, the disability and other aspects, the claimant would be awarded further compensation as under:-

¶31

Loss of amenities & enjoyment Rs. 10,000 Diet, conveyance & attendant charges 5,000 Medical expenses 8,000 Loss of earning during laid-up period 7,000

¶32

------------------------------TOTAL: Rs. 40,000

¶33

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified enhancing the

¶34

¶35

¶36

compensation by Rs. 40,000/- with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit excluding for the delay period. The first respondent shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest as above within three months.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

MP*

¶39

Puttaswamy v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puttaswamy v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Managing Director Vs Shri Chikkanna

Mohana Vs the Manager

Smt Roopa, Vs the Senior Divisional Controller

Smt Jayamma W/O Late Narayanappa Vs T Latha W/O Thirunavukarasu

Mohan Kumar S/O Indrakumar Vs N R Vishwanatha S/O N N Raghavendra Rao

Sri Venkatarama Shetty Vs the Managing Director