1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.632/2013

BETWEEN

1.

SRI. KRISHNAPPA

S/O SADEGOUNDAR,

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

2.

SMT. NAGARATHNA

W/O KRISHNAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT KALLIGADDE,

BASAVANAGADDE,

THIRTHAHALLI TALUK,

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301.

... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA, ADV.)

AND

1.

SRI. DIBIN

S/O VELSON,

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

R/AT SALGADI-KATTEHAKKALU,

THIRTHAHALLI TALUK.

2.

SRI. JOSHI N.K.

S/O KUTTAPPAN,

R/O KOYUR, MALEBETTU POST,

BELTHANGADI TALUK,

MANGALORE, D K.

2

3.

BRANCH MANAGER,

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE,

BALARAJ URS ROAD,

SHIVAMOGGA-577301.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H S LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R3,

R2 SERVED, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH.)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1)

OF

MV

ACT

AGAINST

THE

JUDGMENT

AND

AWARD

DATED:24.09.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1036/2011 ON THE

FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-II,

MACT, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION

FOR

COMPENSATION

AND

SEEKING

ENHANCEMENT

OF

COMPENSATION.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR

‘FINAL HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the claimant challenges the judgment

and award dated 24.09.2012 made by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Shivamogga allowing M.V.C.1036/2011

Whereby, a compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- with 6% interest

per annum thereon has been awarded. The challenge is on

the ground of inadequacy of compensation.

3

2.

The brief facts of the case are that in a vehicular

accident that happened on 20.03.2010 due to rash and

negligent driving of a private bus bearing Registration No.KL-

10-M-5389, a minor boy aged 17 years namely Kiran

sustained fatal injuries and breathed his last. The parents of

the

deceased

preferred

a

claim

petition

in

M.V.C.

No.1036/2011 that was stoutly resisted by the insurer by

filing the written statement.

3.

To prove the claim, the first claimant father of the

deceased got himself examined as PW-1; one Mr. Prakash

who had allegedly employed the deceased in the Bar and

Restaurant was examined as PW-2; from the side of claimant

8 documents came to be marked as per Exhibits P1 to P8

which comprised of the Police Papers, PM report, ID Card

and Driving Licence. From the side of the respondent one

Mr. Joshi the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as

RW1; one Smt. Roopa Ravi an official of the insurer was

examined as RW2; two officials namely Parappa and

4

Kuberappa were examined as RW3 and RW4 respectively.

From the side of the respondents 6 documents came to be

marked as per Exhibits-R1 to R6 which inter-alia included

the DL extract of insurance policy, etc. The MACT after

looking to the pleadings of the parties and after weighing the

evidentiary material on record has made the impugned

judgment and award.

4.

The learned counsel for the claimant contends

that the respondent-insurer has been wrongly absolved from

the liability on the ground that the route permit was violated

by the offending vehicle; otherwise also there was a

justification for violating the route permit in as much as the

road was blocked because of a Leyland lorry having been

parked on the main road because of breakdown. He further

submits that the impugned award has made a very meager

compensation and that the MACT has not made any addition

to the income of the deceased in terms of the recent

judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National

5

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in

(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 and Hem Raj vs. Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others reported in 2018 ACJ 5.

5.

The learned counsel for the respondent-i