Karnataka High Court
Syed Arief @ Arief vs N Nataraju on 4 February, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8689 OF 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SYED ARIEF @ ARIEF
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O, SYED JAMIULLA,
HALEPALYA, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADV.)
AND:
1. N. NATARAJU
MAJOR BY AGE,
S/O. LATE N. NANJUNDAPPA,
(OWNER OF MAXICAB BEARING
REG NO. KA-09/2431),
NONAVINAKERE, TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
SHOPPING COMPLEX, BH ROAD,
TUMAKURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADV., FOR R-2, &
R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
***
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26-2-2011 PASSED IN M.V.C.
NO.564 OF 2002 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
J.M.F.C & ADDL. M.A.C.T., TIPTUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal at the instance of the claimant
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in
M.V.C. No.564 of 2002 by judgment and award dated
26-2-2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
Additional Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Tiptur.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the record.
3. Perusal of the record shows that the only case of
the claimant is that on account of motor vehicle accident,
he has suffered fracture of left clavicle and on account of
the same, he has suffered disability. After examining the
claimant and P.W.5-medical expert, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Insurance
Company has not filed any appeal.
4. Ex.P.49 is the Wound Certificate of the claimant.
It is noted in Ex.P.49 that there was diffuse swelling over
the left clavicle and X-Ray shows that there is fracture of
left clavicle. Obviously, it is a simple fracture.
5. Now, the learned counsel for the claimant placed
reliance on the evidence of P.W.5-medical expert and
Ex.P.44-Disability Certificate to contend that the claimant
has suffered whole body disability of 12-14% and
therefore, he is not able to work and consequently,
compensation awarded is on the lower side. Disability
Certificate is as follows:
"Disability Certificate
Name and Address: Syed Arif S/o Syed Jami
Ulla, Tiptur
Patient has taken treatment for Fracture
i.e., diffuse swelling over the left Clavicle,
X-Ray showed fracture of Left Clavicle.
The above said injury is grievous in
nature and he was treated as Out
Patient. The patient had been treated
once in a week for 6 to 8 weeks with
figure eight Bandage. The patient used
to come for treatment for pain
periodically. Lastly, I have examined him
on 14.02.2011 and the X-Ray number
is 5, shows malunited fracture of
Clavicle. The Medical End is very
Prominent and the Lateral End is below
the Medical End. This separation of Bone
leads to inability to abduct the left upper
limb, inability to do the Circumduction
movement at the left shoulder. The above
abnormality is a Permanent disability
with the above injury, the patient cannot
lift heavy weight and with the above
disability the patient has got 30-35%
disability over the upper limb and
12-14% to the whole body.
Sd/-
Ortho Surgeon
Government Hospital
Turuvekere."
6. P.W.5-medical expert has not stated as to what
extent the movement of left arm has been affected on
account of fracture of clavicle. Certificate and the
evidence is bereft of any detail to be accepted. In the very
nature of things, clavicle fracture appears to be a simple
one and the same will not affect the functional ability of
any person, unless such fracture is associated with the
fracture of shoulder or other part of the body. Medical
evidence does not inspire confidence and therefore, the
Tribunal rightly awarded global compensation of
Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, I do not find any ground to
interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. The appeal
lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I pass
the following
ORDER
i. Appeal is dismissed;
ii. The judgment and award dated 26-2-2011 in
M.V.C. No.564 of 2002 passed by the Senior Civil
Judge and Additional Motor Accidental Claims
Tribunal, Tiptur, is confirmed; and
iii. Transmit the records to the Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kvk
