1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

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

M.F.A.NO.6703/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI HARINATH G.,

S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

R/AT MAJEPALLI,

GUNDUGALU POST,

GANGA VARAM MANDAL,

ANDRA PRADESH - 517 001.

& APPELLANT

(BY SRI SUGUNA R. REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 .

SRI R. SUBRAMANYAM

S/O P. VENKATAMUNI,

MAJOR IN AGE,

R/AT BUNDAKUNTA VILLAGE,

APPINAPALLI POST,

BEDDA PANJANI MANDAL,

ANDRA PRADESH-517 001.

2 .

THE BRANCH MANAGER

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

PRESTIGE CORNICE, 62/1,

2^ND FLOOR, RICHMOND ROAD,

BENGALURU 3 560 026.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.C.SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

R1-SERVED)

2

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

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.02.2013

PASSED IN MVC.NO.6980/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 14^TH

ADDITIONAL

JUDGE,

COURT

OF

SMALL

CAUSES,

MACT,

BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR

COMPENSATION

AND

SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT

OF

COMPENSATION.

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH

8VIDEO CONFERENCE9 THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

Though the matter is listed for admission today, with the

consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up

for final disposal.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award

dated 07.02.2013, passed in M.V.C.No.6980/2011 on the file of

the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, SCCH.10 (8the

Tribunal9 for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

2.

The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

3

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimant met

with an accident and sustained fracture. He also claims that

due to the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability.

In order to substantiate his contention, he examined himself as

P.W.1, another witness as P.W.2 and the doctor as P.W.3. On

the other hand, the respondent 3 Insurance Company has not

led any evidence. The claimant got marked documents Exs.P1

to P8. The Tribunal, after assessing the evidence on record,

allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of

Rs.1,25,640/-. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimant

is before this Court by filing the present appeal.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would

vehemently contend that the claimant has suffered fracture to

lower end of right femur (Type-I compound supracondylar

fracture) and also suffered fracture to the head of right humerus.

He was an inpatient from 24.11.2010 to 09.01.2011 and he was

hospitalized for a period of 46 days. He was subjected to two

surgeries. The doctor has assessed the disability to the whole

body at 47% and in his evidence, he has deposed that the

4

injured requires two more surgeries for correction of non-union

of the fracture, particularly, to the right humerus. However, the

Tribunal failed to award the just and reasonable compensation

and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on all the heads

is meagre. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

5.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that the doctor who

has been examined as P.W.3 is not a treated doctor and he has

not assessed the limb disability but directly assessed the whole

body disability at 47%. Hence, the evidence of the doctor

cannot be accepted and it does not require the interference of

this Court.

6.

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company, the points that would arise for the

consideration of this Court are:-

(i)

Whether the Tribunal has committed an

error

in

not

awarding

the

just

and

5

reasonable compensation and whether it

requires interference of this Cou