Linga Reddy S/O Bommanna vs Mathavan K S/O Kamatchi
2022 Latest Caselaw 2104 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 09 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              M.F.A. No.101274/2016 (MV)

BET WEEN

LIN GA REDDY , S/O BOMMANNA,
AGED AB OUT 26 YEARS,
ST ONE CU TTER,
R/o MADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NOW R/O HALAKUNDI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DIST RICT.
                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SMT.SOU B HAGY A VAKKU ND, FOR
 SRI. Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY,
 SMT.Y.MALATHI REDDY AND
 SMT.SUMA YALGUR, ADVOCAT ES)

AND

1.    MATHAVAN K S/O KAMATCHI,
      AGE: MAJOR, DRIV ER OF THE LORRY
      B EARING No.MH-04/B G-2759,
      R/O 107 ADH IRA VIDAR STREET,
      VIZ HUTHIYAR PAPANASAM, TALUK,
      THANJAVUR.

2.    MR. CHINNARAJA S/O KU PPUSWAMY,
      AGE: MAJOR,
      OWNER OF THE LORRY
      B EARING No.MH-04/B G-2579,
      R/O 107, 1 S T CROS S,
      LAKSHMANA BU ILDING,
      B ENNAGAHALL I, D.V.NAGAR,
      B ENGALU RU DIST RICT.
                             2




3.    THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
      THE NEW INDIA A SSURANCE
      COMPANY LIMITED, BALLARI.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.PREET I SHASHANK, ADVOCAT E FOR R3)
(NOT ICE T O R1 AND R2 DISPS ENSED WITH)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2 016 PASS ED IN
MVC No.597/ 2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMB ER, MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIB U NAL-XII, AT B ALLARI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, TH IS DAY
THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLL OWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant being not

satisfied with the quantum of compensation award ed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity)

in MVC No.597/2013 vide its judgment and award

dated 06.01.2016.

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission,

with the consent of the learned counsels appearing

for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final

disposal. The parties to this appeal are referred to by

their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal

for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal

are:

The claimant had met with a road traffic

accident on 30.04.2013 in which the offending lorry

bearing registration No.MH-04/BG-2759 was involved.

It was the case of the claimant that he along with

another was traveling in a motorcycle bearing

registration No.AP-02/AQ-1250 towards their village

and the offending lorry which was driven in a rash

and negligent manner dashed against their

motorcycle near Thammenahalli village, Molkalmuru

taluk and caused the accident. In the said accident,

the claimant had suffered simple injuries and he was

treated as an inpatient for three days. The claimant

had therefore filed a claim petition under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act')

claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of

the offending lorry. The Tribunal had partly allowed

the claim petition and awarded a global compensation

of `75,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the

date of petition till realization. Being not satisfied

with the quantum of compensation, the claimant is

before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant submits

that in addition to the four simple injuries, the

claimant had also suffered head injury which is

evident from the case sheet-Ex.P9. She submits that

the Tribunal had failed to consider this aspect of the

matter. She submits that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal compared to the injuries and

treatment undergone by the claimant is on the lower

side. Therefore, she prays to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the insurer submits that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal itself is on the higher side. She

submits that except four simple injuries, the claimant

has not suffered any other injuries. She also submits

that the doctor who had treated the claimant has not

been examined before the Tribunal and there is no

evidence to show that the claimant had suffered any

grievous injury on his head. She also submits that

the claimant has not even produced any medical bills

and inspite of the same, the Tribunal had awarded

global compensation of `75,000/- with interest at 7%

per annum which is on the higher side. Accordingly,

she prays to dismiss the appeal.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments

addressed on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

7. The accident in question is not in dispute,

so also the involvement of the offending lorry bearing

registration No.MH-04/BG-2759 which was insured by

the 2 n d respondent-insurer in the said accident. The

only question that arises for consideration in this

appeal is with regard to the adequacy of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the

claimant. It is not in dispute that the claimant had

suffered only four simple injuries as could be seen

from the wound certificate produced by the claimant

before the Tribunal as Ex.P3. Though it is mentioned

in the case sheet at Ex.P9 that the claimant had also

suffered a head injury, there is no material on record

to show that the said injury was grievous in nature

and had caused any disability. The doctor who had

treated the claimant is not examined before the

Tribunal. The claimant has not produced medical bills

before the Tribunal nor has he produced particulars

of the treatment taken by him with regard to the

alleged head injury. Under the circumstances, I am of

the considered view that the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal to the claimant having regard to the

injuries suffered by him and the treatment undergone

for the same is just and proper and needs no

interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE CLK