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

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - BENCH AT DHARWAD
SHRI SADASHIV GOVIND DONGRE – Appellant
Versus
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER – Respondent
MFA 23736/2009



Advocates:
['Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY', '', 'RAVI HOSAMANI', 'DC MSRTC KOLHAPUR - SD', '']

: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 23736/2009 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SHRI SADASHIV GOVIND DONGRE

S/O. GOVIND DONGRE

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

RESIDING AT BHUUJAWADE

NOW STAYING AT BIDREWADI,

HUKKERI TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT

... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. V. MALATHI REDDY, ADV.)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

KOLHAPUR DIVISION,

NEAR CENTRAL BUS STAND,

KOLHAPUR TALUK, KOLHAPUR DISTRICT

OWNER OF BUS BEARING NO. MH-20/D-7437

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. C.V.ANGADI, ADV.)

(Vakalath is not filed, memo of undertaking of appearance

has been filed on 26.04.2017)

---

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

ACT,

AGAINST

THE

JUDGMENT

AND

AWARD

DATED

13.07.2009, PASSED IN MVC NO. 2052/2008, ON THE FILE

OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & MACT, BELGAUM,

PARTLY

ALLOWING

THE

CLAIM

PETITION

FOR

COMPENSATION

AND

SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT

OF

COMPENSATION.

: 2 :

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking enhancement of the

compensation awarded by the Principal Civil Judge

(Sr.Dn.) and M.A.C.T., Belagavi (hereinafter referred to

as ‘The Tribunal’, for brevity), by its judgment and

award dated 13.07.2009 in MVC No.2052/2008.

2. The only contention of the appellant in this

appeal is that, awarding a global compensation of

`10,000/- for the injuries suffered by him is inadequate

and that the Tribunal below has not considered to award

the compensation under different heads.

3. On

notice

being

issued,

respondent

is

represented by its counsel. The Tribunal records were

called for and the same are placed before me.

4. Heard the arguments from both sides and

perused

the

memorandum

of

appeal,

impugned

: 3 :

judgment and the entire materials placed before this

Court.

5. The point that arises for my consideration is:

“Whether the Appellant has made out a

ground

for

enhancement

of

compensation?

6. The learned counsel for the appellant in her

arguments submitted that the Government Hospital

which has examined the injured immediately after the

accident has observed only a cut lacerated wound on the

person of the claimant. On the very same day, the

injured was examined by a doctor in a private hospital,

which noticed fracture of right femur and advised bed

rest for 21 days. This aspect has not been properly

appreciated by the Tribunal below.

7. The

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent-

Insurance company in his argument submitted that the

Tribunal below has appreciated both medical documents

produced before it and has rightly suspected the

genuinity and correctness of medical certificate said to

: 4 :

have been issued by the private hospital. As such, the

compensation what has been awarded by Tribunal itself

is on the higher side.

8. The summary of the claimant’s case in the

Tribunal below is that, on 23.11.2007, the claimant was

travelling in a MSRTC bus bearing registration No.MH-

12/AV-9300 from Pandarapur to Chandgad. While the

bus came near Kerwadi Phata on Miraj-Phandarpur road,

another MSRTC bus bearing No.MH-20/D-7437, being

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,

came from opposite direction and dashed to the bus,

where the claimant was travelling. As such, due to the

said accident, he sustained injuries.

According to the claimant, he was shifted to the

Government Hospital at Kavate Mahankal and then took

treatment with Dr.Patil at Ravalnath Hospital, Chandgad

and incurred `15,000/- as medical expenses. Stating

that he has suffered physically, mentally and unable to

do his work, he claimed a compensation of `2,50,000/.

: 5 :

The Tribunal below, after recording the evidence

led before it and perusing the documents produced

before it, more particularly, the medi

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