1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

MFA No.6377 OF 2016(MV)

BETWEEN:

SHARANA BASAVA AACHARI

S/O MONAYYA AACHARI

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

R/AT NO.26, JANTHA COLONY

DAOODAKANNALLI, SARJAPURA ROAD

BENGALURU-560078

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. UDAYA KUMAR R L., ADV.)

AND

1.

NORTH SOUTH LOGISTICS SERVICE

PLOT NO.07, 1ST FLOOR, RAJIV NAGARA

OPP PAYAL CINEMA

OLD DELHI ROAD

BEHIND CREMA

RSS TORENT SEC-14

GURGAON PIN-122001 (HR)

2.

TAT AIG INSURANCE CO LTD

NO.69, J.P. & D.J.JAMBUKESHWAR

ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR

2

MILLERS ROAD,

BANGALURU-560052.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADV. FOR R2:

NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH

V/O DATED:14.12.2017)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF

MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DATED:27.05.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1696/2014

ON THE FILE OF THE 10^TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE,

COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BENGALURU,

PARTLY

ALLOWING

THE

CLAIM

PEITTION

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 the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’,

for short) has been filed by the claimant being

3

aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.5.2016 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 14.12.2013, the claimant

was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-52-E-1185 on the left side of Bengaluru

Tumakuru

Kunigal

NH4

Bypass

under

bridge,

Nelamangala Town, at that time, lorry bearing

registration No.HR-55-K-9547 being driven by its

driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, dashed to the vehicle 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

4

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 No.2

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded

that the accident was due to the rash and negligent

riding of the vehicle by the claimant himself. The

driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid

driving licence as on the date of the accident. The

liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

policy. 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

The respondent No.1 did not appear before the

Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed

ex-parte.

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.B.Ramesh was examined as

PW-3, and three other witnesses as PWs-2, 4 and 5,

and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P37.

On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was

examined nor any document was produced. The

Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,

held that the accident took place on account of rash

and negligent driving of the 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.10,05,236/- along

with