1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

M.F.A.NO.10603/2013 (MV-I)

CONNECTED WITH

M.F.A.NO.10602/2013 (MV-I)

IN M.F.A.NO.10603/2013

BETWEEN

SRI H N KEERTHI

S/O NARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

RESIDING AT HALEURU

HOSKOTE TALUK

BANGALORE DISTRICT

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

SRI T RAMAKRISHNAIAH

S/O RAMAIAH

MAJOR IN AGE

R/AT BALLAVOLU VILLAGE

CHILLAKUR MANDAL

NELLORE DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH-524003

2.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

REGIONAL OFFICE

SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING

2

M G ROAD

BANGALORE-560001

REP BY ITS MANAGER

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

V/O DT.05.10.2015, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2013

PASSED IN MVC.NO.5089/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,

BANGALORE AND ETC.

IN M.F.A.NO.10602/2013

BETWEEN

SRI N RAMESH

S/O NARAYANAPPA

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

R/A HALEURU

HOSKOTE TALUK

BANGALORE DISTRICT

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. SRI T RAMAKRISHNAIAH

S/O RAMAIAH

MAJOR IN AGE

R/A BALLAVOLU VILLAGE

CHILLAKUR MANDAL

NELLORE DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH-524003

3

2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

REGIONAL OFFICE

SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING

M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001

REP BY ITS MANAGER

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B A RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

V/O DT.02.06.2014, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.06.2013

PASSED IN MVC.NO.5088/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MOTOR

ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,

BANGALORE AND ETC.

THESE M.F.A.S COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

These appeals are filed by the claimants challenging the

judgment

and

award

dated

19.06.2013

passed

in

MVC.Nos.5089/2008 and 5088/2008 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (8the

Tribunal9 for short).

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

respective parties.

4

3. The factual matrix of the cases of the claimants in

M.V.C.No. Nos.5089/2008 and 5088/2008 respectively are that

they were proceeding in the motorcycle on 14.03.2008, towards

H-cross on Kolar-hospital cross road near Dalasagere cross at

that time, a lorry came in the opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner and drove the same wrong side and dashed

against the motorcycle as a result, both of them have sustained

injuries and immediately they were shifted to the hospital and

thereafter they took treatment at different hospitals as a result

of accidental injuries they have suffered permanent disability.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the claimant in

M.V.C.No.5089/2008 would contend that the claimant had

sustained the fracture of lower end right humerus and fracture of

both bones of right fore-arm and fracture of right index finger.

In support of his contention, he also examined the doctor as

PW5 who in his evidence deposed that CT scan showed left

temporal bone fracture and fracture of right index finger and X-

ray of right arm showed fracture of lower end humerus and he

was an inpatient for a period of 16 days. It is the evidence of

PW5 that the disability to upper limb is 30% and disability to the

5

whole body at 12%. But the Tribunal has not taken any

disability though discussed in paragraph 29 with regard to the

disability to the whole body at 12% and comes to the conclusion

that there is no evidence to show that the disability assessed by

PW5 is functional disability. However, only awarded an amount

of Rs.63,000/- as total compensation.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the claimant in

M.V.C.No.5088/2008 would contend that he had suffered the

fracture of tibia and fibula and he was