Karnataka High Court
Gulappa S/O Eranna vs M S Nagaraju on 27 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:8506
MFA No. 2052 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2052 OF 2016(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
GULAPPA,
S/O ERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
LORRY DRIVER,
RESIDENT OF GOPALPURA ROAD,
CHITRADURGA TOWN,
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
PIN CODE-577 501.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
1. SMT. NAGARATHNA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O. LATE GULAPPA,
2. SRI. DURGAPRASAD,
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
PARVEEN S/O. LATE GULAPPA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. MISS. VACHANAGANGA,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. NAGARATHNA
ALL ARE RESIDENTS
NEAR PEDDAMMA YELLAMMA TEMPLE
AND ALSO GOPALPURA WATER TANK,
BOVI COLONY,
CHITRADURGA TOWN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:8506
MFA No. 2052 of 2016
CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT,
PIN NO - 577 501.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. R. CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M. S. NAGARAJU,
S/O. M. SANJEEVASHETTY,
AGE-MAJOR,
OWNER OF LORRY BEARING,
REG NO.KA-16-C-7070,
R/O NEW SANTHEMAIDAN,
CHITRADURGA TOWN,
PIN CODE-577 501.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPNAY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE,
SHARADA COMPLEX,
I FLOOR, P. B. ROAD,
OPP TO KSRTC BUS STAND,
CHITRADURGA TOWN,
PIN CODE-577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.11.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.765/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, MACT-4, CHITRADURGA, 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:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:8506
MFA No. 2052 of 2016
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.R.Chandranna, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the IV Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chitradurga in MVC No.765/2013 dated 04.11.2015.
3. The appeal was initially preferred by the injured
claimant. However, on account of his death during pendency of
the appeal, his wife and children were brought on record as the
legal representatives of the deceased claimant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
injured claimant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic
accident and became permanently disabled. Though the nature
of injuries were established and the aspect of disability was also
established, the Tribunal did not award any sum as
compensation either under the head loss of earnings during the
treatment period or loss of future earnings. Learned counsel
NC: 2025:KHC:8506
also states that the compensation that is awarded by the
Tribunal is too meager and therefore the same requires
enhancement.
5. Per contra, the submission that is made by learned
counsel for respondent No.2 is that the injured claimant neither
established his occupation nor earnings by the date of accident.
Learned counsel further states that the injured claimant also
did not establish the aspect of disability and therefore the
appeal is not maintainable.
6. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as
compensation globally. As per the contents of Ex.P7 - wound
certificate, the injured claimant sustained fracture of distal
phalanx of 2nd and 3rd toe which is grievous in nature. Though
the appellant produced Ex.P10 disability certificate, he did not
choose to establish its genuineness before the Tribunal.
Likewise the injured claimant failed to produce any proof with
regard to his hospitalization and medical expenditure. Equally,
the injured claimant failed to establish his occupation and
earnings by the date of accident. However, as rightly contended
by learned counsel for the appellants, the amount awarded as
NC: 2025:KHC:8506
compensation i.e. Rs.20,000/- is on lower side. The injured
claimant who sustained a fracture would have taken bed rest
for not less than two months. He would have certainly suffered
loss of earnings during the said period. Also the injured
claimant would have incurred certain medical expenditure for
his treatment. For taking treatment he would have incurred
atleast nominal expenditure towards transportation and
attendant charges. Therefore, considering all these factors, this
Court is of the view that the compensation is required to be
enhanced globally by Rs.30,000/-.
7. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The compensation that is granted by the IV Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga, through orders in
MVC No.765/2013 dated 04.11.2015 is enhanced from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
NC: 2025:KHC:8506
iv) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced
sum within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
v) On such deposit, the appellants No.1 to 3 are
entitled to received the said amount with equal shares.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
