Karnataka High Court
Smt.Geetha D/O Prahalad Katti vs Sri.Basavaraj Maruthi Pujar on 8 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2854
MFA No. 100622 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100622 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETHA D/O. PRAHALAD KATTI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE AND HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJ MARUTHI PUJAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF
THE VEHICLE NO.KA-29/R-4979,
R/O: CHIRALKOPPA, TQ: BADAMI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THONTADARYA VIDYAPEET BUILDING
Digitally
signed by ROTARY CIRCLE, P.B. ROAD,
SAROJA
SAROJA HANGARAKI GADAG-582101.
HANGARAKI Date: POLICY NO.240702/31/08/01/00004178.
2024.02.19
16:06:16 VALIDITY FROM 3/11/2008 TO 2/11/2009.
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.11.2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.545/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VIII, BADAMI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2854
MFA No. 100622 of 2016
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.S.S.Yaligar, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Injured/claimant is in appeal challenging the validity
of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.545/2010 dated
28.11.2012 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-
VIII, Badami.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Injured suffered accidental injuries in a road traffic
accident that occurred on 03.08.2009 involving a motorcycle
bearing No.KA.29/R.4971. He was taken to the hospital and
treated.
4. Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary written
statement. Tribunal on contest, allowed the claim petition in a
sum of Rs.61,000/-. Same is under question on the ground of
inadequacy of compensation by the claimant.
5. Sri.S.S.Yaligar, learned counsel reiterating the
grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2854
contended that Tribunal has not properly considered the
material evidence on record and sought for enhanced
compensation.
6. Per contra, Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for
respondent No.2/Insurance company supported the impugned
judgment and also contended that the case sheet marked at
Ex.P.10 clearly shows that there is no fracture at all sustained
by the claimant and therefore, award of the compensation in a
sum of Rs.61,000/- itself is on the higher side and sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
7. He also pointed out that the evidence of P.W.2
contrary to the material documentary evidence placed on
record and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record, meticulously,
9. On such perusal of the material on record, the
claimant is successful in establishing that he suffered injuries in
a road traffic accident involving motorcycle bearing
No.KA.29/R.4971 and another motorcycle bearing engine
No.CFK81159682 and chassis bearing No.MD625M5881k79507.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2854
10. However, Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel has rightly
contended that Ex.P.10 is the case sheet of Kerudi Hospital
clearly shows that claimant has not sustained any fracture at all
whereas, he has claimed that he has sustained two fractures.
These aspects of the matter has been rightly considered by the
Tribunal in the impugned judgment and awarded sum of
Rs.61,000/- as the compensation, which is the considered
opinion of this Court is just and proper.
11. As such, hardly there is any scope for any
enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
