Karnataka High Court
Sri A P Somaiah vs Sri Naveen Kumar K M on 22 February, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7637
MFA No. 269 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.269 OF 2024 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI A.P.SOMAIAH
S/O.LATE A.G.PONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT IVATHOKLU VILLAGE
KARGUNDA, MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAGADISH BALIGA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI NAVEEN KUMAR K.M.
S/O.LATE K.P.MUTTAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT MEKERI VILLAGE
KAGGODLU, MADIKERI TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201
Digitally 2. SRI H.A.GANAPATHI @ GIRI
signed by B S/O.VISHWANATH H.B.
LAVANYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
Location: R/AT BETTAGERI VILLAGE
HIGH MADIKERI TALUK
COURT OF KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201
KARNATAKA
3. THE MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7637
MFA No. 269 of 2024
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.55/2020 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT
AT MADEKERI AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the owner, who was
respondent No.1 before the tribunal, challenging the
judgment and award dated 31.12.2022 in
MVC.No.55/2020 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge
and Member, MACT, Madikeri (for short, 'the tribunal').
This appeal is founded on the premise of judgment being
arbitrary and illegal and to shift the liability to the
Insurance Company.
2. On perusal of the appeal memo, objection has
been raised by the Registry with regard to maintainability
of appeal, in view of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').
3. The claim petition was filed by the claimant
seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the
NC: 2024:KHC:7637
tribunal. The claim petition came to be allowed-in-part.
The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- with
interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the deposit
and saddled the liability on respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e.
the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively,
whereas absolved respondent No.3-Insurance Company
from the liability and dismissed the claim petition against
it.
4. The present appeal is preferred by the owner,
wherein the appeal is valued at Rs.50,000/- for the
purpose of jurisdiction and Court fee.
Section 173(2) of the Act reads as under:
"No appeal shall lie against any award of a
Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the
appeal is less than one lakh rupees."
5. The amendment is made to Section 173(2)
inserting 'one lakh rupees', which has come into force on
01.04.2022.
NC: 2024:KHC:7637
6. In view of the above, this appeal filed in the year
2024 would come under Section 173(2) of the Act.
Therefore, the amendment is squarely applicable to the
present case on hand. In view of there being clear bar of
no appeal being maintainable, if the amount in dispute in
the appeal is less than Rs.1,00,000/-, I am afraid the
appellant cannot maintain this appeal when he has
specifically mentioned in the appeal memo to the effect
that the subject value of the appeal is Rs.50,000/-.
Therefore, the Legislature in its wisdom has formulated
this law wisely to see that the citizens or the statutory
authorities do not flock into the Court for the amount
which is prescribed therein, probably treating it to be
meager i.e. less than Rs.1,00,000/- and burden the Court.
7. In view of the value of the subject matter being
less than Rs.1,00,000/- in the present appeal, the appeal
would not be maintainable. Hence, I do not find any
reason to issue notice to the respondents.
NC: 2024:KHC:7637
Accordingly, at the initial state itself, the appeal is
dismissed as not maintainable, in view of the bar
provided under Section 173(2) of the Act.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to
the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration
and the same pale into insignificance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LB
