IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10716/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
GOVINDANAIKA S/O SANNA LAXMANANAIKA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCCUPATION: COOLI R/O KURUDIHALLI, LAMBANIHATTY CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRAUDRGA DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SHRI. H. ASHOK KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
K. JAGANNATHA S/O KALANAIKA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O KURUDIHALLI LAMBANIHATTY CHALLAKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522 ... RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.52/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, CHALLAKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging judgment and award dated 04.10.2011 in M.V.C.No.52/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MAsCT, Challakere (‘Tribunal’ for short) seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The claimant approached the Tribunal seeking compensation claiming inter alia that he sustained injuries while he was traveling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle belonging to the respondent. Admittedly, the vehicle was not insured. In support of his claim, the claimant produced medical bills for Rs.1,00,000/-. Except himself, no other witness was examined. On consideration of material, Tribunal has recorded a finding that medical bills are not genuine. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- as global compensation taking note of one contusion sustained by the claimant.
3. Respondent though served, has remained absent.
4. Shri H.Ashok Kumar, learned advocate for the appellant submits that claimant had purchased medicine from different medical shops but the Tribunal has disbelieved and accordingly disallowed the medical expenses.
5. I have carefully considered the submission of learned advocate for the appellant and perused the records.
6. Claimant was treated as an inpatient in S.S.Institute of medical Sciences & Research Centre, Davanagere. Ex.P8 is the discharge card issued by the said Institute. It is submitted by the learned advocate that medicines were purchased by the claimant from different medical shops. But this claim is not supported by any medical prescription. Ex.P8 also does not indicate that claimant was advised to purchase medicines from outside. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the Tribunal was justified in not considering the medical bills. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and award.
7. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.