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) 54839

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

M.F.A.NO.5087/2012 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SUJAYA,

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

S/O SUNDAR BANGERA,

R/O BAILOOR POST & VILLAGE,

UDUPI TALUK.

& APPELLANT

(BY SMT. NAZEEFA M MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. H PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

RAGHAVENDRA BHAT,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

S/O SUBRAMANYA BHAT,

BHARATHI MOTORS,

ADARSHA BUILDING,

BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI 3 576 101

2.

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,

570-NELGUM CROSS ROAD,

NEXT TO ROYAL IND ESTATE,

WADALA (W), MUMBAI 3 400 031

REP: BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI D.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

V/O/DTD 17.11.2014, R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)

2

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

07.06.2011 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE MACT AT UDUPI, IN

MVC No.1122/2009 TO THE EXTEND OF DISALLOWED CLAIM

AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION,

IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

04.03.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

This

is

an

appeal

by

the

petitioner

seeking

enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal for

personal injury sustained by him, in the petition filed under

Section 163A of the MV Act under no fault liability.

2.

For the sake of convenience the parties are

referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.

3.

The petitioner has filed this appeal seeking

enhancement contending that the compensation granted is

highly insufficient, inadequate and disproportionate and as

such requires enhancement.

3

4.

It is the case of the petitioner that on

28.06.2009 at about 10.20 a.m. petitioner was proceeding

on his motor cycle on Kundapura-Udupi Highway-17

towards Sasthana side. When he reached Saligrama Pete of

Chitrapady village, bus bearing registration No.KA 20/B

4131 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) came

from Kundapura side towards Udupi, in a high speed and

over took the motor cycle of the petitioner and moved

further. When a passenger gave a hand signal to stop the

bus, the driver of the said bus suddenly applied brake, as a

result of which the petitioner who was behind the bus fell

down and sustained injuries.

5.

Petitioner claimed compensation in a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending

vehicle.

6.

Before

the

Tribunal,

respondent

No.1

has

remained Ex-parte.

4

7.

Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and

filed written statement denying that the accident occurred

due to the rash or negligent driving of the bus. On the other

hand, it was the petitioner who rode the motor cycle in a

rash or negligent manner without following the traffic rules

and rode the motor cycle from the wrong side and as a

result of which accident occurred. In fact the police have

registered the case against the petitioner. The coverage of

the bus is denied. The driver of the bus was not holding a

valid and effective driving license and sought for dismissal

of the petition.

8.

During enquiry petitioner has examined himself

as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 11.

9.

On behalf of respondent No.2, RW-1 is examined

but no documents are marked.

5

10.

Vide the impugned judgment and award, the

Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and granted

compensation in a sum of Rs.32,210/- as detailed below:

Heads

Amount in

Rs.

Medical expenses

5,720

Pain and sufferings

20,000

Attendant9s charges

700

Food and extra nourishment

2,000

Conveyance

700

Loss of income

3,000

TOTAL

32,210

11.

Though,

Tribunal

has

calculated

the

compensation payable as Rs.32,210/-, relying upon the

second schedule of the MV Act, it has granted global

compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

12.

Respondent

No.2

has

not

challenged

the

impugned judgment and award.

13.

Not

being

satisfied

with

the

quantum

of

compensation, petitioner has approached this Court in this

appeal.

6

14.

Even though the petitioner claim that the

accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the

driver of the offending vehicle, it is an undisputed fact that

the criminal case was registered against the petitioner

himself. The very fact that he has filed the petition under

163A of the MV Act goes to show that he is the person who

is at fault. While maintaining the petition under 163A of the

MV Act, it is not open to the petitioner to claim that the

accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the

offending vehicle. To that extent his contention cannot be

accepted.

15.

As evident from the wound certificate, the

petitioner has sustained the following injuries:

<1.Capsular injury to both T.M.J.

2.Subluxation of Maxillary anterior teeth.

3.Cut lacerated wound over forehead 2 cmX1/2 cm

4.Cut lacerated wound below right nostril 2X1/2 cm

5.Cut lacerated wound below left eye 2X1/2 cm.

6.Contusion over right shoulder.

7.Contusion over right wrist.

7

8.Cerebral concussions.

9.Abrasions:

a)Above upper lip.

b)Below the right and left nostril

c)Dorsum of right hand.

d)Front of right shoulder

e)Behind left forearm

f)Lateral right eyebrow

g)Above the right

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top