1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

M.F.A. NO. 6094/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI BOOPATHI,

S/O MUNISWAMY,

AGED 22 YEARS,

R/A BYRATHI CROSS,

KOTHANUR POST,

BANGALORE – 560 030. …APPELLANT

(BY SRI D.S. SRIDHAR FOR SRI K.V. SHYAMAPRASADA

ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

CHIKPET BRANCH, 1^ST FLOOR,

LAKSHMI COMPLEX, NO-40,

K.R.ROAD, FORT, BANGALORE – 560 002

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,

B.M.T.C.,

K.H.ROAD,

BANGALORE – 560 027. …RESPONDENTS

(BY C SHANKAR REDDY ADVOCATE FOR R-1,

NOTICE NOT ORDERED TO R-2)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED

UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE

2

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.04.2013 PASSED IN

MVC NO.6629/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL

SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF

SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The Claimant who is appellant, has filed this

appeal being dissatisfied with the judgment and award

dated 19.04.2013 in MVC 6629/2011 on the file of the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore

2. The claim petition was filed U/s 166 of M.V Act

seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a

road traffic accident occurred on 4.3.2011 when the

claimant was proceeding in his cycle on Kannuru-

Bagaluru road and when he reached near Kannuru

Church, BMTC bus bearing No. KA-01-F-3191 dashed

against the cycle of the petitioner – claimant, due to the

rash and negligent driving by its driver. Due to the

impact of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous

injuries and was shifted to Peace Hospital wherein he

3

took first aid treatment and then he was shifted to K.K.

Hospital for further treatment.

3. It is stated that the petitioner was working as

Labourer at Chowdeshwari Concrete Blocks, Bangalore

earning Rs.6500/- p.m. He was aged 19 years as on the

date of accident. On issuance of the notice, the

respondent No.2 remained absent and respondent

No.1- United India Insurance Company Ltd., filed its

written statement denying the claim petition averments.

But admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the

vehicle in question. It is further stated that the accident

occurred only due to negligence on the part of the

claimant himself. The respondent No.1 has also denied

the age, income and avocation of the claimant. In

support of the claim of the claimant, examined himself

as PW1 and the Doctor has been examined as PW2 and

marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24. No evidence was led in by the

Respondent – Insurer. The Tribunal based upon the

materials on record, has awarded the compensation of

Rs.1,50,540/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of

4

petition till its realization. While awarding the above

compensation, the Tribunal has assessed the income at

Rs.5000/- p.m and the whole body disability at 6%.

Being

aggrieved

by

the

award

of

quantum

of

compensation, this appeal is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the

materials on record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on

the lower side. Further submitted that the income

assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.5000/- per month is on

the lower side. The claimant – petitioner states that he

was earning Rs.6500/- p.m working at Chowdeshwari

Concrete Blocks, Bangalore. It is stated by the Doctor

that the claimant has suffered 8% disablity to the whole

body. But the Tribunal has assessed whole body

disability at 6% which needs to be reassessed. It is the

submission of the learned counsel for the claimant –

appellant that the Tribunal has failed to award prop