Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Mohamad Akbar on 4 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44098
MFA No. 6044 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6044 OF 2023(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
E-8, EPIP, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022
NOW WILL BE REPRESENTED BY
SHRIRAM GIC LTD.,
N.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE,
BELEKALHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OPP BAZNNERGHATTA ROAD,
IIMB POST, BANGALORE-76.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMAD AKBAR,
Digitally signed by S/O MOHAMAD PEER,
AASEEFA PARVEEN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/O SARAGURU VILLAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHANDAKAVADI VILLAGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
2. RAVIKUMAR
S/O NARASIMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 104, AMMANAPURA VILLAGE,
KAGALAVADI POST,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
V/O. DATED 12.09.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44098
MFA No. 6044 of 2023
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.07.2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.167/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND C.J.M., MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS. 8,97,323/- WITH INTEREST AT
6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy.N.A. who represents
Sri.Pradeep.B learned counsel on record for the appellant.
2. Notice to respondent No.2 stood dispensed with.
Though notice was served upon respondent No.1, there is no
representation.
3. The appellant challenges the order that is rendered
by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Chamrajanagar in MVC
No.167/2016 dated 13.07.2022. The Tribunal through the
impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.8,97,323/- as
compensation and directed the appellants herein to pay the
same to respondent No.1/claimant along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum.
NC: 2024:KHC:44098
4. Arguing the matter Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy.N.A. for
appellant contends that the appellant, except examining
himself as PW1, did not examine any other witnesses on his
behalf. Learned counsel states that without there being any
proof with regard to the aspect of disability, the Tribunal on its
own, took the disability as 20% and awarded a huge sum of
Rs.3,67,483/- under the head loss of future earnings which is
unjustifiable. Learned counsel submits that assessment of
compensation by the tribunal is totally erroneous. Learned
counsel thereby seeks for passing necessary orders.
5. A perusal of record reveals that respondent
No.1/claimant succeeded in establishing that he sustained three
grievous injuries i.e., dislocation of ankle, fracture of right leg
and fracture of scapula apart from one simple injury i.e.,
lacerated wound on right hand. As rightly submitted by
Sri.Mallikarjun Reddy.N.A. no evidence whatsoever was
produced to establish the aspect of disability. Respondent
No.1/claimant has not examined either the Doctor who treated
him or the Doctor who assessed the disability. Thus, without
there being any proof to establish that there was physical
disability or mental disability and that disability effects the
NC: 2024:KHC:44098
functioning of the claimant, the Tribunal is not expected to
assess by its own the aspect of disability and come to a
conclusion that the disability might be 20%.
6. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded
a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head pain and suffering,
Rs.35,000/- towards discomfort and loss of amenities,
Rs.4,69,840/- towards medical expenses incurred,
Rs.3,67,843/- towards loss of future earnings and thus
Rs.8,97,322/- in total. However, in the light of absence of any
proof with regard to the aspect of disability, this Court is of the
view that award of compensation under the head loss of
earnings due to permanent physical disability is unjustifiable.
7. Though respondent No.1/claimant projected that by
doing business he was earning Rs.75,000/- per month, no proof
to that effect was produced before the Tribunal. Also
respondent No.1/claimant did not choose to appear before this
Court and may his submission regarding the grounds urged by
the appellant disputing the validity of the impugned order.
NC: 2024:KHC:44098
8. Considering the totality of evidence produced, this
Court is of the view that respondent No.1/claimant is entitled to
compensation under following heads:
Sl Amount
Compensation
No. in Rs.
1 Compensation for pain and suffering 60,000-00
Towards food, extra nourishment, diet, 10,000-00
attendant and conveyance charges
Loss of earnings during laid up period
3 50,000-00
and loss of amenities in life
Medical expenditure to the extent 4,69,839-00
proved
Total 5,89,839-00
Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal Chamarajanagar through
orders in MVC167/2016 dated 13.07.2022 is
reduced from Rs.8,97,323 to Rs.5,89,839.
(iii) Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS
