IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A.No.7971 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN:
CHANDRIKA @ CHANDRAKALA, W/O LATE GOPALA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT 25-24, JEPPU BAPPAL, STANY COMPOUND, KANKANADY, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT, PIN - 575005.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND 1. ABDUL SAMAD, S/O MOHAMMAD, ADULT, HOSAMANE HOUSE, PANDEL, PAKKA, ALEKALA, ULLAL POST, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K.
PIN - 575018.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., RAMA BHAVAN COMPLEX, KODIALBAIL, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT, PIN-575001.
... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 28/07/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1474/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANGALURU, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT In this appeal the claimant is calling in question the judgment and award dated 28.07.2018 rendered by the MACT, Mangalore, D.K. allowing her claim in M.V.C.No.1474/2017 whereby a compensation of Rs.99,497/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been awarded. The challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. In a vehicular accident that happened on 13.03.2017 because of rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-19-ET- 216, the claimant sustained grievous injuries; her claim petition in M.V.C.No.1474/2017 for a compensation of Rs.10 lakh was resisted by the respondents by filing the Written Statement.
3. To prove the claim the claimant was examined as PW-1; Dr.Suresh K. Mankar, who had treated the claimant was examined as PW-2; from the side of the claimant 14 documents came to be marked as per Ex.P-1 to P-14 which comprised of Police Papers, IMV Report and Medical Records. None was examined from the side of the respondents; however, a copy of Insurance Policy was got marked as Ex.R-1.
4. The MACT having perused the pleadings of the parties and having weighed the evidence on record has made the impugned judgment & award which the claimant grieves it to be on the lower side. Thus she has approached the Appellate Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the appeal papers, this Court declines to interfere in the matter for the following reasons:
(i) the vehicular accident due to rash & negligent driving and consequent injuries to the claimant are not in dispute; the MACT in its accumulated wisdom has considered the doctor’s opinion at Ex.P-3 as to the nature of injuries and the temporary disablement thereby; it has awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for pain & suffering which cannot be faltered;
(ii) the claimant was hospitalized during the period between 13.03.2017 and 21.03.2017 i.e., for eight days; the MACT has awarded Rs.6,900/- towards food & nourishment and attendant charges; for medical expenses and loss of amenities, it has awarded Rs.32,597/-; towards disability, the MACT has awarded Rs.10,000/-; the award of the compensation under these heads does not appear to be unreasonable; and, (iii) in the first appeal, it is not sufficient to show that the impugned judgment is bad; the appellant has to establish that the same is unsustainable; the grounds for unsustainability have not been substantiated; another view is possible in the matter and that had the award been for higher amount, this Court would not have set aside the challenge thereto, if any, are no reasons for indulgence.
In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands rejected in limine.
Sd/- JUDGE Snb/