SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40360

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top