1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

BEFORE

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

MFA No.9149 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

CHIDANANDAMURTHY

@ CHIDANANDAPPA

S/O SHEKHARAPPA

AGED BOUT 32 YEARS

TEACHER, SRI.DHAMALAMBA HIGH SCHOOL

R/O CHIKKAGUNTANUR VILLAGE

CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501.

... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.R.SHASHIDHARA, ADV. )

AND

1.

RAMESH N.

S/O NAGENDRAPPA

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

R/O HIREGUNTANUR VILLAGE

CHITRADURGA TALUK-577 501.

2.

THE BRANCH MANAGER

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

B.M. COMPLEX, LAXMI BAZAR,

CHITRADURGA-577 501.

... RESPONDENTS

2

(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2:

NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF

MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DATED: 06.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.279/2013 ON

THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

MACT-V, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE

CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THIS

MFA

COMING

ON

FOR

ADMISSION,

THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, 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

aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.07.2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2.

Brief facts of the case:

On 17.9.2011 at about 11.20 a.m., claimant was

proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Registration

No.KA-16/M-2404,

towards

Hireguntanur,

near

3

Gopamma land cross, at that time, a motorcycle

bearing Registration No.KA-16/S-2372 being ridden by

its rider, came at a high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle

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 on the ground that he was a teacher

and was getting salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. The

claimant claimed compensation to the tune of

Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest.

4.

On service of summons, even though

respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel, but

not filed written statement. The respondent No.2

appeared through its counsel and filed written

statement in which the averments made in the

petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition

4

si bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the

owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-

16/V-2404. It was further pleaded that the accident

was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the

motorcycle by the claimant himself. It was further

pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with

respondent No.2, but the liability if any, is subject to

terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, he sought

for dismissal of the petition.

3.

The learned counsel for the claimant has

raised the following contentions.

Firstly, due to the accident claimant has suffered

hemorrhage contusion in right temporal portion and

fracture of left frontal bone. Due to disability he is

unable to do day today work. He has produced

Ex.P.16, disability certificate issued by the District

Hospital, Chitradurga, which shows that whole body

disability assessed at 40%. The Tribunal has not

5

granted any compensation under the head of ‘loss of

income due to disability’.

Secondly, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under other heads are on the lower side.

Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.

4.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

Insurance

Company

has

raised

the

following

contentions.

Firstly, even though the claimant has produced

disability certificate, but he has not examined treated

doctor, who has issued the same and he has not

proved the documents. Therefore, the Tribunal on the

basis of the materials available on record has granted

just and reasonable compensat