Karnataka High Court
Sri T M Nagaraj vs The National Insurance Company Ltd on 8 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:45408
MFA No. 464 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Sri. T.M. NAGARAJ,
S/O T.V. MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1-1575,
ANJANI EXTENSION-MAIN ROAD,
CHINTAMANI TOWN,
CHIKKABBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 125.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGESH VIZAY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SOMANATH H.,)
AND:
1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
Digitally signed
EXTENSION COUNTER-DAB II,
by VINUTHA B S
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SAGAR AUTOMOBILES,
NO.39/2, BANNARGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
2. M.A. LAXMAN,
S/O LATE ANJANEYA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT MALAPALLY,
CHINTAMANI TOWN - 563 125.
3. SMT. VANAJA,
W/O M.A. LAXMAN,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:45408
MFA No. 464 of 2013
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/AT MALAPALLY,
CHINTAMANI TOWN - 563 125.
4. SMT. VANI,
W/O LATE ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT SHANTHI ORCHID,
NO.11, SAINT JOHNS ROAD,
CANTONMENT,
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D. MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. D. NAGARAJ REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3
V/O DTD 05/01/2016 NOTICE TO R4 D/W)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.06.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.50/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC,
CHINTHAMANI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Nagesh Vizay, learned counsel who argued
on behalf of Sri. H.Somanath, learned counsel on record
for the appellant. Also heard Sri. D.Nagaraja Reddy,
NC: 2023:KHC:45408
learned counsel who represented respondent Nos.2 and 3.
None represents respondent No.1 despite service of
notice.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Chintamani, in MVC.No.50/2002 dated 12.06.2012. The
sequence of events as could be perceived through the
material available on record are as follows:
I. The appellant initially filed an application claiming
compensation of Rs.8,00,000/. The Tribunal through
judgment dated 07.09.2006, awarded a sum of rupees
20,000/- as compensation.
II. Aggrieved by the said amount that is granted as
compensation, the claimant preferred an appeal vide
MFA.No.10687/2006.
III. This Court through judgment dated 01.06.2011
remanded the matter back to the tribunal for fresh
consideration.
IV. The Tribunal thereafter subjecting the evidence of
PWs-1 and 2, Exs.P-1 to P-8 to scrutiny, came to a
conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a sum of
NC: 2023:KHC:45408
Rs.57,000/- as compensation and passed order
accordingly.
3. Aggrieved by the said sum and contending that
the sum awarded as compensation i.e., Rs.57,000/- is
meager, the present appeal is preferred.
4. Making his submission with regard to the merits
of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant states that
the appellant is a Photographer by profession. Due to the
accident occurred, the appellant sustained multiple
grievous injuries and said injuries resulted in filing claim
petition for compensation. The appellant had taken
extensive treatment and he is still continuing the
treatment.
5. Learned counsel states that though the
evidence of PW-2 is produced to prove those facts, the
Tribunal has not taken into consideration the evidence of
PW-2 and thereby arrived at a wrong figure. Learned
counsel states that the appellant could not continue his
NC: 2023:KHC:45408
profession as Photographer due to the injuries sustained
and thus the disability is 100% and therefore the sum
claimed ought to have been awarded as compensation.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand states that, the Tribunal
taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances
has awarded a reasonable sum as compensation, which
needs no interference.
7. Learned counsel also contends that the
appellant produced the medical record which does not
pertain to the injuries sustained by him. Learned counsel
also contends that no evidence whatsoever is produced to
show that the appellant is permanently disabled. Learned
counsel ultimately contends that the tribunal has awarded
a reasonable sum as compensation and thus the award of
tribunal needs no interference.
NC: 2023:KHC:45408
8. The accident as per the version of the appellant
occurred on 16.03.2000. Ex.P-2, wound certificate goes to
show that the appellant sustained the following injuries.
1. Multiple lacerated injuries on forehead
with large area abrasion.
2. Muscle deep wound on fore head.
3. Loss of skin and tissue on right
temporal region.
4. A cut of wound on right partial region.
9. It is also mentioned that the said injuries are
grievous in nature. As to how the doctor who issued the
Ex.P-2, wound certificate, mentioned that afore mentioned
injuries as grievous in nature, is not known. That apart,
the Medical Officer who attended the appellant was not
examined by the appellant before the Court as his witness
for the reasons best known.
10. Though the evidence of PW-2 is produced, it is
not the evidence of PW-2 that he attended the injured i.e.,
appellant soon after the accident. The evidence of Pw-2 is
that after his retirement in the year 1988, he started
NC: 2023:KHC:45408
running a clinic and the appellant used to attend his clinic
once in a while with common complaint of cold and fever.
He deposed that he used to treat the appellant and he
noticed the appellant suffering from Diabetic Mellitus,
Hypertension, Acute Coronary Syndrome and Paralysis of
Right Leg and Right Hand.
11. What Clinical and Radiological examinations
were conducted is not stated by PW-2 at all. Also PW-2
did not even specifically mention that he had got required
qualification as a specialist to treat Paralytic patients on
the persons suffering from Acute Coronary Syndrome.
PW-2 did not even mention the medicines he prescribed
for treating the appellant. No other evidence is on record
to show the Diabetic Mellitus, Hypertension, Coronary
Syndrome and Paralysis have direct link with the injuries
sustained by the appellant during the road traffic accident.
Without these material facts being established, the
appellant cannot expect either the tribunal which dealt
NC: 2023:KHC:45408
with the matter or this Court to award huge sum of
Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation.
12. When, the order of the tribunal which is under
challenge is gone through, this Court finds that the learned
Judge has dealt with all the aspects of the case and has
come to a just conclusion. This Court does not find any
reasons whatsoever to interfere with the well reasoned
order. Therefore, the ultimate conclusion of this Court is
that the appeal lacks merit and deserves dismissal.
Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed without costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SRA
