Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunath A. V vs Sri. Abdul Khayam on 1 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8768
MFA No. 6946 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6946 OF 2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH A.V
S/O VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
SUPERVISOR, R/AT M.S.FARM,
TANGALI ROAD, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SOMESH., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. RAJARAM.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. ABDUL KHAYAM
S/O ANVER PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
Digitally signed by DRIVER OF K.S.R.T.C. BUS BEARING
THEJASKUMAR N REGN NO.KA-09/A-2055,
Location: HIGH BADGE NO.6115,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT BEECHANAHALLI,
H.D.KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K.S.R.T.C.,
CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
K.S.R.T.C., KENGAL,
HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 027.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8768
MFA No. 6946 of 2015
4. SMT. M.P.KUMUDASHREE
D/O M.S.PALAKSHA,
MAJOR, R/AT NO.56,
MADHAVI, 5TH MAIN,
JAYALAKSHMIPURAM,
MYSORE-570 001.
5. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NO.371/A, 3RD FLOOR,
PRESTIGE COMPLEX,
RAMASWAMY CIRCLE,
MYSORE-570 001.
6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY ,
M.G.PALACE, GOPI CIRCLE,
SHIMOGA-577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 16.02.2022;
BY SMT. B.P.RADHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3;
SRI. P.NATARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.02.2013
PASSED IN MVC NO.123/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT, KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
HEARING-INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:8768
MFA No. 6946 of 2015
JUDGMENT
Sri.Somesh., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Rajaram.S.,
for the appellant, Sri.H.S.Lingaraj., learned counsel for
respondent No.5 and Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., learned counsel
for respondent No.6 have appeared in person.
Though the appeal is listed today for hearing on
interlocutory application, the delay is condoned and with the
consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is heard
finally.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on the 11th day of
March 2006, at about 7:00 a.m., he was riding his motor cycle
Hero Honda bearing Registration No.KA:14/S-2947 in a slow
manner and observing all traffic rules and regulations. At that
time, near K.S.R.T.C. bus stand, the first respondent was
driving the bus bearing Registration No.KA:09/A-2055 in a rash
and negligent manner without observing all traffic rules and
regulations came in a high speed and hit the claimant's vehicle.
Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on
NC: 2024:KHC:8768
his leg and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was
shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kadur. He was
admitted as an in-patient at Government General Hospital,
Kadur for 15 days and as per the advise of the doctor, he took
treatment as an out-patient for six months and took rest for
three months. Contending that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the bus, claimant filed claim
petition seeking compensation.
After the issuance of the notice, respondents 1 to 3, 5
and 6 appeared through their counsel and respondents 1, 2, 5
& 6 have filed their respective objections and respondent No.3
filed memo adopting the objections filed by the respondent
No.2.
In response to the notice, respondent No.4 did not
appeare and hence, he was placed ex-parte. The petition
against respondent No.5 was dismissed. In the statement of
objections the respondents urged several contentions and
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
issues and parties led evidence and marked the documents.
NC: 2024:KHC:8768
The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:13.02.2013 partly allowed
the claim petition. It is this Judgment that is called into
question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the
Memorandum of Miscellaneous First Appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record
and law.
Next, he submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is meagre.
A further submission is made that the appellant is having
40% total disability to his limb, however, the Tribunal has
awarded a meagre amount towards medical expenses.
Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle the
compensation is liable to be enhanced. Counsel therefore,
submits that the appeal may be allowed.
Learned counsel Sri.H.S.Lingaraj., and counsel
Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., justified the Judgment passed by the
Tribunal and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:8768
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers with utmost care.
5. The point that requires consideration is whether the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?
6. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the claimant filed claim
petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per
the Wound Certificate the claimant suffered two simple injuries
i.e.,
1. Lacerated wound over Left thigh with swelling
measures about 2x1 cms.
2. An abrasion over Left knee measures about
2x1 cms.
Taking note of the material evidence on record, the
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand
only) towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,243/- (Rupees Five
Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Three only) towards medical
expenses, in all a sum of Rs.10,243/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Two Hundred and Forty Three only). It is pivotal to note that
for simple injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:8768
in a petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles
Act is just and proper. I find no reason to interfere with the
judgment. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MRP
