Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shivaraj Shetty vs Sri.Rathan M Shetty on 5 March, 2024
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9248
MFA No. 8147 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8147 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVARAJ SHETTY @ SHIVARAJ
S/O BHOJA SHETTY,
HINDU AGED 24 YEARS,
PERMANENT R/AT NO.3-91,
KANAJARU BLOCK 3 & BLOCK 2,
H.NO.1-5, 54-68 87,
LUDRAS PRIVATE HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
KANAJARU, ANGADIBETTU,
KARKALA TALUK 574 102.
NOW R/AT HINDUSTAN SAW MILL,
MISSION COMPOUND 76,
BADAGABETTU VILLAGE, BAILOOR,
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT 576 107.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.KRISHNA SWAMY.S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
THEJASKUMAR N
Location: HIGH 1. SRI.RATHAN.M.SHETTY
COURT OF
KARNATAKA S/O MITHRADAS SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT "RESHMA NIVAS"
YERMAL, KALYANI BAR BACK SIDE,
BADA VILLAGE-574 117.
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
N.H.66, MULKY-574 154.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
BY SRI. B.A.RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9248
MFA No. 8147 of 2016
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 17.08.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.667/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI AND ADDITIONAL MACT,
UDUPI.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.Krishna Swamy.S., learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna., learned counsel for respondent No.2
have appeared in person.
2. Though the appeal is listed today for admission,
with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it
is heard finally.
3. Notice to the respondents was ordered on
12.07.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts the first
respondent is served and unrepresented. The first respondent
has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted
the case as party in person.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their status and rankings before the Tribunal.
NC: 2024:KHC:9248
5. It is the case of the claimant that on the 23rd day of
November 2014, he and his friends were coming from Hejamadi
to Udupi on N.H.66, when they reached near Budhagi Petrol
Pump, Yermal Bada Village, Udupi Taluk, at about 10:20 pm.,
they noticed a crowd gathered on the road side near to the
petrol bunk. They parked their two wheelers on the left side of
the road on the muddy area and were standing, at that time a
Maruti Omni Car bearing Registration No.KA-20-Z-8093, came
from Mangalore side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the
two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-20-W-2280 which was
parked on the mud area and to the claimant and his friend
Fidelio Heeranna. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained
injuries and he took treatment at Adarsha Hospital. Contending
that he sustained injuries on account of the accident, the
claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the first respondent did not
appear before the Tribunal and hence, he was placed ex-parte.
The second respondent appeared through its counsel and filed
objections and denied the petition averments. Among other
grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:9248
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
Issues, parties led evidence and marked the documents. The
Tribunal vide Judgment dated:17.08.2016 partly allowed the
petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this
appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of
appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record
and law. He argued by saying that the Tribunal has erred in
awarding meager global compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only). Counsel therefore, submits that the
Judgment of the Tribunal requires interference and hence, the
appeal may be allowed.
Learned counsel for the Insurance company justified the
Judgment of the Tribunal. He submits that the appeal is devoid
of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective
parties and perused the appeal papers with utmost care.
7. The point that requires consideration is whether the
Claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation?
NC: 2024:KHC:9248
8. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require
reiteration. Suffice it to note that the Tribunal extenso referred
to the material on record and awarded global compensation of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
actual deposit. However, looking into the nature of injuries
sustained by the claimant in the accident, this Court deems it
appropriate to enhance the global compensation to
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as against Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. The Miscellaneous First appeal is
allowed in part. The Judgment dated:17.08.2016
passed by the Court of Addl. Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal & Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi in
M.V.C.No.667/2015 is modified holding that the
claimant is entitled for the enhanced global
compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per
NC: 2024:KHC:9248
annum from the date of the claim petition till the
date of realization.
2. The second respondent - Insurance
Company shall deposit the enhanced global
compensation along with 6% interest within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of
the certified copy of this Judgment.
3. Needless to observe that the claimant is
not entitled for the interest for delay period.
4. The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
5. Office is directed to transmit the original
records to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
TKN
