Karnataka High Court
Sri. Narayanaswamy vs Sri. Sukhram Bhawarkar on 4 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36253
MFA No. 1642 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1642 OF 2021(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NARAYANASWAMY
S/O SRI. LATE GURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT THOTI VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT 563 101
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH BABU K.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SUKHRAM BHAWARKAR
S/O BISHRULAL BHAWARKAR,
(AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT)
AT PO SARORA, MOHKHED,
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN CHHINDWARA 480 001
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
2. BRANCH MANAGER
HDFC ERGO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.25/1, 2ND FLOOR,
BUILDING NO.2,
SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING,
NO.1, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED: 18.01.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36253
MFA No. 1642 of 2021
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2020 PASSED IN MVC
NO.5710/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT, XVI
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
SCCH-14, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Harish Babu K.N., learned Counsel for the
appellant as well as Shri B.Pradeep, learned Counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Dissatisfied with the amount that is awarded as
compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bangalore, through orders in MVC No.5710/2018 dated
03.01.2020, the claimant is before this court by way of
appeal. The Tribunal through the impugned order
NC: 2024:KHC:36253
awarded a sum of Rs.3,85,000/- divided under the
following heads:
Heads Amount in Rs.
Towards Pain and suffering 40,000-00
Towards food and 21,000-00
nourishment, conveyance
and attendant charges
Towards medical expenses 2,00,000-00
Towards loss of income 24,000-00
during the period of
treatment
Towards loss of amenities 1,00,000-00
Total 3,85,000-00
3. Arguing the matter, Shri Harish Babu K.N., learned
Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
sustained multiple injuries in the accident and took
extensive treatment. The appellant incurred a sum of
Rs.4,30,000/- for the treatment. However, the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- only under the head
Medical expenses which is unjustifiable. Learned Counsel
also states that compensation awarded under all other
heads except loss of amenities is also low and therefore,
the appellant is before this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:36253
4. Contradicting the submission thus made,
Shri B.Pradeep, learned Counsel for respondent No.2
contends that the Tribunal taking into consideration all
facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a justifiable
sum as compensation and therefore, the award of the
Tribunal needs no interference. Learned Counsel also
submits that though the appellant did not chose to
establish the genuineness of medical bills, yet, the
Tribunal awarded a huge sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards
medical expenses.
5. A perusal of the records reveals justification in
the submission made by Shri Pradeep. The Tribunal
clearly observed at para 13 of the impugned order that
Ex.P9 prescriptions are not properly tallying with Ex.P10
medical bills. Also, the appellant did not choose to
examine the doctor who treated him. Having considered
the fact that appellant sustained one grievous injury and
two simple injuries, the Tribunal awarded a sum of
Rs.3,85,000/- in total as compensation. The amount thus
NC: 2024:KHC:36253
awarded is highly justifiable. This Court does not find any
grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the
Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that appeal
is devoid of merits.
6. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
YN
