1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.9446 OF 2011(MV)
BETWEEN
SRI C P NAGARAJ
S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
PWD CONTRACTOR
RESIDING NEAR OLD DECCAN SCHOOL
BEHIND COLONY
VINOBANAGAR,SHIMOGA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PRAKASH M PATIL, ADV.)
AND
1 .
SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S T
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A BAPUJI NAGAR
5TH CROSS, SHIMOGA.
2 .
THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSRUANCE COMPANY LTD
BRANCH OFFICE, S.S.COMPLEX
IST FLOOR (OPP MULARANGAPPA PETROLPUMP)
B.H.ROAD, SHIMOGA
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GEETHA RAJ, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED: 10.02.2015)
2
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT
AGAINST
THE
AND
AWARD
DATED:06.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.398/2010 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-
III,
ADDITIONAL
MACT-IV,
SHIVAMOGGA,
PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 8the
Act9) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved
by the judgment dated 06.07.2011 passed by the
MACT, Shivamogga in MVC No.398/2010.
2.
Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 05.01.2009 at about 04.35
p.m., when the clamant was so proceeding from
Savalanga road on his motorcycle bearing Registration
No.KA-14/Q-5232 and when he was so proceeding in
front of the Housing Co-operative Society near
Shivamurthy Circle, at that time, the driver cum
3
owner of the Bajaj Auto bearing Registration No.KA-
14/6201 drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and in a high speed came from opposite
direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the
claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
claimant
sustained
grievous
injuries
and
was
hospitalized.
3.
The claimant filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded
that
he
spent
huge
amount
towards
medical
expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded
that the accident occurred purely on account of the
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
its driver.
4.
On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 have appeared through counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
4
petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition
itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age,
avocation and income of the claimant and the medical
expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the
quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is
exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
petition.
5.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr. Umesh Kamath was
examined as PW-2 and got exhibited documents
namely
Ex.P1
to
Ex.P24.
On
behalf
of
the
respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1
and RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1
to Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned
judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place
on account of rash and negligent driving of the
5
offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which,
the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further
held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.1,37,200/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
6.
The learned counsel for the claimant has
contended that due to the accident, the claimant has
suffered fracture of left wrist, fracture of third
metacarpal on the left, fracture of 6th metacarpal on
the right and condyle fracture of right knee. He was
inpatient in the hospital for a period of 4 days. He has
suffered lot of pain during the treatment. Considering
the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and
sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the
lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
6
7.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has contended that the
injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature.
He was inpatient in the hospital only for a period of 4
days. Therefore, considering the documents available
on record and considering the evidence of PW-1, the
Tribunal
has
granted
just
and
reasonable
compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9.
It is not in dispute th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.