IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4263 OF 2015 (MV) Between:
B. Mahabaleshwara S/o R. Bundegowda Aged about 46 years R/o Aralakuppe Village Pandavapura Taluk Mandya District 571 414 …Appellant (by Shri Sreenivasan M.Y., Advocate) And:
1. Suresha S/o Nanjegowda Major R/o Kaparana Koppalu village Srirangapatna Taluk Mandya District 571 413 2. The Branch Manager ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Saraswathi Theatre Saraswathipuram Mysore city 570 010 3. Proprietor and dealer Prayag TVS Motors Double Road Mandya 571 401 (by Shri B.C. Shivannegowda, Advocate for R2; Smt. Bhushani Kumar, Advocate for R3) …Respondents This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and award dated 10.11.2014 passed in MVC No.254 of 2009 on the filoe of the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Pandavapura, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement in the compensation. For the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident occurred on 20th June 2008, the injured made claim petition. The JMFC Court at Pandavapura by its order dated 10th November 2014 passed in MVC No.254 of 2019 awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,365/-. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that prior to accident the appellant was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month and that due to the injuries suffered in the accident, he is not able to do the work as earlier. He submits that the injured has suffered right front temporto parietal acute sub dural hemmorahage, and left too with diffuse cerebral edema, diffuse axonal injury with seizure disorder. Though the doctor has stated that the injured has sustained 60% disability, the tribunal has considered one third disability which is on the lower side. Hence he seeks enhancement in the compensation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance, submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation based on the materials and documents produced before it and after considering the evidence adduced; and the same does not call interference from this Court. Hence, she submits to dismiss the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the materials placed before it and has awarded the compensation of Rs.10,00,365/-. Further, by taking note of the fact that the vehicle was not having valid insurance policy as on the date of accident, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, which cannot be found fault with. Hence, considering all the aspects of the matter, it is to be held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and the same does not call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Appeal stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn