Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Prabhakara B on 4 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44244
MFA No. 7963 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. 7963 OF 2023
(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
MAGMA HDI GIC LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, HM ASTRID,
NO. 36, J. C. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 56002.
NOW REP. BY ITS
LEGAL MANAGER,
MAGMA HDI GIC LTD.,
NO.36, II FLOOR,
MINERVA CIRCLE, JC ROAD,
BANGALORE-27.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by KAVYA R
Location: High (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR;
Court of SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
1. PRABHAKARA. B,
S/O BOMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO 668, 2ND MAIN,
11TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI,
2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560072.
2. KANGAMATHU. P,
S/O PONNUSAMY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44244
MFA No. 7963 of 2023
R/O 45B, EAST STREET,
RAMANATHAPURAM,
RAMANAICKENPALYAM POST,
ATTUR TALUK, SALEM,
TAMIL NDAU - 636 108.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHAR. K. M., ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI. PRABHAKARA K L.,ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.08.2023 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2197/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE
AND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES BENGALURU SCCH-13,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,40,215/- WITH INTEREST
AT 6 PERCENT P.A. (EXCEPT FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES )
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. Mallikarjuna Reddy, who represents
Sri. Pradeep. B, learned counsel on record for the
appellant as well as Sri. Somashekhar. K. M., who
represents Sri. Prabhakara. K. L, learned counsel on
record for respondent No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:44244
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in M.V.C. No.2197/2022 dated 30.08.2023.
3. Sri. Mallikarjuna Reddy representing the
appellant submits that this appeal is filed challenging the
quantum that is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal.
The learned counsel states that the Tribunal awarded an
exorbitant sum of Rs.9,40,215/- as compensation.
Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.7,42,500/- under the head 'loss of future earnings'.
Indeed there was no loss of earnings and the business of
respondent No.1/claimant increased subsequently, i.e.,
after the date of accident. That being the situation, there
is no requirement to award any amount as compensation
under the head 'loss of future earnings'. However, the
Tribunal awarded exorbitant sum as compensation under
the head 'loss of future earnings' and therefore the
present appeal is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to
NC: 2024:KHC:44244
allow the appeal and disallow the amount that is awarded
under the head 'loss of future earnings'.
4. On the other hand, the submission that is made
by Sri. K. M. Somashekar, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 is that, respondent No.1 / claimant was running a
Gym and was training the persons who joined his Gym.
Respondent No.1 / claimant produced sufficient proof in
the form of IT Returns to show his earnings. Basing on
those documents and considering the aspect of disability,
the Tribunal awarded justifiable sum under all the heads
and thus the appeal is not maintainable.
5. A perusal of records reveals that the Tribunal
placed reliance on Ex.P10-Registration Certificate
regarding the occupation of respondent No.1 / claimant
and Ex.P11-Income Tax Returns regarding his earnings.
The appellant herein took a specific plea that respondent
No.1 was earning more amount than that he was earning
prior to the date of accident. Though such plea was taken,
no proof was produced by the appellant to show that there
NC: 2024:KHC:44244
was increase in earnings after the date of accident. The
Tribunal subjecting all the evidence to scrutiny has come
to a just conclusion with regard to the amount which
respondent No.1 / claimant is entitled to. Without there
being any proof regarding the pleas taken, this Court
cannot allow the appeal and decrease the amount that was
awarded as compensation by the Tribunal. This Court thus
does not find any merits in the appeal.
6. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
7. Amount if any in deposit be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
LDC
