Karnataka High Court
Sri. Raju Ganapati Naik vs Manjunath Sanna Bovi on 26 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4538
MFA No. 102523 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102523 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJU GANAPATI NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS, AGRICULTURE.
R/O. MALAVATTI- ARGUPPA,
SIDDAPUR,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581355
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAXMESH P. MUTAGUPPE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MANJUNATH SANNA BOVI
(DELETED AS PER ORDER DT: 10-4-2014)
2. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.T.C,
Digitally
signed by SUB DIVISION, HUBBLLI ROAD,
ROHAN
ROHAN HADIMANI
HADIMANI T
SIRSI, PIN-581402.
T Date:
2024.02.28
12:13:06
+0530 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C. B. PATIL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)
OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:
30.06.2014, PASSED IN MVC.NO.42/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
MEMBER ADDITIONAL MACT SIRSI, 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:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4538
MFA No. 102523 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation under judgment and
award dated 30.06.2014 passed in MVC No.42/2013 by
the Additional MACT, Sirsi (for short, 'Tribunal').
2. Brief facts of the case are:
The petitioner along with his brother standing in front
of grocery shop near Siddapur bus stand along with his
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/Q-3253 by the
side of the road on 21.05.2012 at about 3.45 p.m. At that
time bus bearing registration No.KA-31/F-919 of the 2nd
respondent came from Siddapur Bus stand in a rash and
negligent manner, driver of the bus lost control over the
bus, dashed to the compound wall as well as appellant and
some other persons standing there, resulted in sustaining
grievous injuries to the appellant.
3. The appellant filed claim petition seeking
enhancement of compensation for the injuries suffered by
him by contending that he has suffered injury to left foot,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4538
left ankle and right shoulder and all over body and he was
shifted to Government Hospital, Siddapur and thereafter
provided treatment at Marikamba Hospital, Sirsi and he
was admitted as a inpatient. After discharge from the said
hospital the appellant has taken Ayurvedic treatment in
different hospitals. It is averred that the appellant is an
agriculturist and he is unable to carryout regular
agriculture activity in view of the accident hence, he
sought the compensation.
4. The claim petition is opposed by the
respondents/Corporation contending that the appellant has
not taken any treatment and the injuries sustained are
minor. They have denied the income, age, avocation of the
appellant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. The appellant adduced the evidence by
examining himself as PW1 and produce Exs.P1 to P19.
Tribunal after analysing the evidence has awarded total
compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4538
payment is made. Being aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal seeking for enhancement.
6. Shri. Laxmesh P. Mutaguppi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that the Trial Court
committed grave error in awarding meager compensation
of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant, despite placing sufficient
material before the Tribunal with regard to injuries
suffered by him. It is submitted that the Tribunal without
taking note of the age and income of the appellant has
proceeded to determine the compensation. Hence, he
seeks to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
7. Per contra, Shri. C.B Patil, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the
appellant has not placed any evidence before the Tribunal,
hence the award of compensation by the Tribunal is just
and proper and does not call for any evidence. He seeks
for dismissing the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4538
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on record. There is no
dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by the
appellant. The wound certificate at Ex.P4 indicate that the
appellant sustained lacerated wound of size measuring
10x5 cm of the left foot and the said injuries are simple
injuries. The oral evidence of PW1 indicate that he has
spend Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment. However, the
said oral evidence of PW1 is not supported with any
document to substantiate the same case.
9. It is admitted that the appellant has not
examined by the doctor and also not produced any
medical evidence to indicate that the injuries, treatment
taken by him and no evidence was produced with regard
to the disability. The appellant has produced the RTC of
Agricultural Land to contend that the appellant is an
agriculturist however, the Tribunal taking note of the RTC,
has recorded the findings that the agricultural land is
standing in the name of one Ganapati Naik and Ram Naik.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4538
This Court does not find any error in the finding of the
tribunal insofar as the RTC's are concerned.
10. Considering the rival submissions and taking
note of the evidence available on record, the interest of
justice would be met if the appellant is awarded
Rs.50,000/- as a Global Compensation as against
Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. The award of
Rs.50,000/- Global compensation includes all the heads
cleared by the appellant.
11. The impugned judgment and award of the
tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly,
the appeal is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE
