Karnataka High Court
M.Maheshwari vs Manjaiah on 18 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15293
MFA No. 4892 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4892 OF 2014(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
M.MAHESHWARI
D/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT D.NO.175, 22ND CROSS,
'B' BLOCK, 3RD STAGE,
VIJAYANAGARA,
MYSORE-570 017.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANJAIAH
S/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.789, 25TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN, VIDYARANYAPURAM,
Digitally signed by
THEJASKUMAR N MYSORE-570 008.
Location: HIGH (ONER OF VEHICLE BEARING
COURT OF REG NO.KA-05/B.8719).
KARNATAKA
2. P.MANJUNATH
S/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O NO.75, 11TH MAIN,
KURUBARAHALLI,
MYSORE-570 008.
(DRIVER OF VEHICLE
BEARING REG.NO.KA-05/B.8719).
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15293
MFA No. 4892 of 2014
3. M/S. TATA AIR GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
LIVIN CORNER, 1ST FLOOR,
2ND MAIN, V.V.MOHALLA,
MYSORE-575 008.
(POLICY NO.015155054100
INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING
REG NO.KA-05/B.8719).
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1&R2-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED:21.01.2015;
BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.10.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.1100/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSORE.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Abubacker Shafi., learned counsel for the appellant
has appeared through video conferencing.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts are these:
On the Sixth day of August 2012 at about 3:30 pm., the
claimant was riding her Spirit Scooter bearing Registration
NC: 2024:KHC:15293
No.KA-16-K-9392 near Maruthi Temple at Saraswathipuram,
Mysore proceeding from South to North near Royal World Shop.
At that time, a auto rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-05-B-
8719 came in a rash and negligent manner from East to West
and hit her. Due to the impact, she fell and sustained injuries
all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Kamakshi
Hospital, Kuvempunagar, Mysore and took treatment as an
inpatient from 06.08.2012 to 19.08.2012. Contending that she
is entitled for compensation, the claimant filed a Claim Petition.
In response to the notice, respondents 1 and 2 remained
absent before the Tribunal and hence, they were placed ex-
parte. The third respondent - Insurance Company appeared
through its counsel and filed statement of objections denying
the petition averments. Among other grounds, it prayed for
dismissal of the Claim Petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:11.10.2013 partly allowed the
Claim Petition and awarded compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- with
6% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of
NC: 2024:KHC:15293
realization. The Claimant has assailed the Judgment of the
Tribunal in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the respective parties have
urged several contentions.
Learned counsel for the appellant in presenting his
arguments strenuously urged that the Tribunal has erred in
awarding meager compensation under different heads and
hence, the same is required to be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company justified the
Judgment of the Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid
of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers and also the records
with utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration whether the
Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation.
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. The Claimant's appeal is one for enhancement of
NC: 2024:KHC:15293
compensation. The grounds urged in the present appeal are
mainly relating to the meager compensation awarded under
different heads by the Tribunal. Suffice it to note that the
claimant sustained injuries on account of the accident. A doctor
by name J.S.Hegde., was examined as PW2. In the evidence,
he deposed that the percentage of disability assessed by him
does not come in her way to discharge the duties. He has also
deposed that there is no functional disability. Taking note of the
same, the Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the
head loss of income due to disability. Furthermore, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads
are just and proper. I find no reasons to interfere with the
Judgment of the Tribunal.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal is devoid of
merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
