Karnataka High Court
Subbamma vs Karbasayya And Anr on 4 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2804
MFA No. 200701 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200701 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SUBBAMMA
W/O BANDEPPA KOLAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR, NOW NILL,
R/O SITALGERA FOR WORK
AT KUDAMBAL,
NOW R/O KASHEMPUR,
TQ. & DIST: BIDAR-585 401.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. VAISHNAVI CHANDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
SACHIN
Location: 1. KARBASAYYA
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
S/O REVANSIDDAYYA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O AINAPUR,
TQ: CHINCHOLI,
DIST: BIDAR-585 401.
(OWNER OF AUTO BEARING
REG. NO.KA 32/B 1178)
2. MANAGER,
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2804
MFA No. 200701 of 2017
SUDEV PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR,
MUSKURATE RAHO DAJIBA PETH,
OPP. LAXAMI TEMPLE,
HUBLI-580 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI SHAMBULING S. SALEMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2013 IN MVC
NO.638/2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MACT AND PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT BIDAR AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL THEREBY ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.81,000/- TO RS.8,00,000/- AS
CLAIMED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Miss Vaishnavi Chanda, learned counsel who
argued on behalf of Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for
the appellant as well as Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel for respondent No.2. Though Sri Shambuling S.
Salemath, learned counsel is on record for respondent
No.1, learned counsel failed to make his appearance and
submit his contentions.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2804
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar in
MVC No.638/2013 dated 31.12.2016.
3. Making her submission that only quantum is in
dispute, Miss Vashnavi Chanda, learned counsel contends
that as against the claim for Rs.10,00,000/-, the Tribunal
has awarded a sum of Rs.81,000/- as compensation and
therefore, the compensation may be enhanced. Learned
counsel also states that the accident occurred in the year
2013 and since 2013, the appellant is suffering from
disability. Learned counsel further submits that though the
aspect of disability is established by producing the
disability certificate, yet the Tribunal did not consider the
same and thereby erred in arriving at just compensation
and hence, by setting aside the award passed by the
Tribunal, just compensation may be awarded.
4. On the other hand, Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the
Tribunal taking into consideration all the aspects, awarded
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2804
a suitable amount as compensation and therefore, the
award needs no interference.
5. As per the version of the appellant, due to the
injuries sustained which are grievous in nature, she
became totally disabled. However, the undisputed fact is
that as per the contents of Ex.P4 - Wound Certificate, the
appellant sustained only two simple injuries i.e., an injury
on forehead and an abrasion on right knee joint. The
Tribunal made a pertinent observation in its order that
Exs.P20 to P25 prescriptions covers the period from
January, 2014 to November, 2015 when the accident
occurred in the month of August, 2013. No evidence is
produced to show that the appellant was at least treated
as inpatient in any hospital immediately after the accident.
That apart, the genuineness of Ex.P26 - Disability
Certificate is also not established. Thus, considering all
these aspects, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.81,000/- as compensation which includes Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards medical
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2804
expenses, Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during laid
up period, Rs.2,000/- towards conveyance charges,
Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.10,000/-
towards loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/- towards extra
nourishment charges.
6. When the appellant had contended that she
sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and
became disabled, it is for her to establish that she indeed
sustained grievous injuries due to the accident and that
those injuries resulted in disability. However, in the case
on hand, the appellant has not produced any convincing
evidence to prove the alleged disability. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the impugned order needs no
interference.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
