IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 201 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
H. A. KIRAN KUMAR SON OF APPASWAMY GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT HONGADAHALLA HETTURU HOBLI SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 577 153.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI.K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SUMANTH KUMAR SON OF MOHANRAJ AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT ANCHIHALLI VILLAGE ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 577 153.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX B. M. ROAD, HASSAN – 577 153.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SRISHAILA , ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS ACCEPTABLE THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION ORDER DATED 06.01.2016) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.07.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.621 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant impugning the judgment and award dated 26.7.2011 in MVC No. 621/2007 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan (for short, ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, has granted to the appellant – claimant a total compensation of Rs. 83,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, is called upon to the amount awarded.
2. The claimant met with a road accident on 16.12.2006 when he was travelling in a motor car bearing registration No. KA-04-1457 and a TATA SUMO, owned by the respondent No.1, collided with this vehicle. The claimant suffered fracture injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate, Ex. P3. The Insurance Company filed objection statement denying its liability, while the owner of the offending vehicle was placed ex parte. The Insurance Company took a specific stand that the offending vehicle was not insured and the details of the policy as mentioned in the claim petition were insufficient to ascertain whether it had indeed insured the offending vehicle.
3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the material on record, has found that the accident was brought about by the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and therefore, the claimant was entitled to recover compensation. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 83,300/- as indicated including a sum of Rs. 51,000/- towards pain and suffering. As regards the Insurance Company’s liability, the Tribunal has accepted the evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company.
4. The Insurance Company examined one of its officers who, in reiteration of the contentions in the objection statement, deposed that the policy details mentioned by the claimant were incomplete and as such, the appellant could not verify whether it had issued any policy to cover the risk as against the use of the offending vehicle. The officer also deposed that correspondence were made with its other branches in this regard. There is no dispute that the claimant is unable to furnish the full or necessary details of the policy. The cross-examination of this witness is also very tenuous. It is not even suggested to this witness that the number found in the policy relied upon by the claimant was related to the vehicle in question and that with necessary diligence, the Insurance Company could have found out whether any policy was indeed issued for the offending vehicle. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, the Tribunal’s finding as regards the Insurance Company’s liability does not call for interference.
5. Even as regards the quantum of compensation, the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference. The claimant, except his own testimony about the injuries and the ensuing disabilities, has not placed any evidence. The wound Certificate show that the claimant suffered fracture to his left forearm and right leg, but has neither explained the treatment taken by him, except stating that he was hospitalized, nor examined the doctor, who should have spoken about the permanent disability for the Tribunal to assess the functional disability. The Tribunal, as borne out by the records, has awarded a total sum of Rs.83,300/- which would be just and reasonable compensation in the light of the facts and circumstances of this case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE nv