IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A. NO.5050/2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
J.K.Nagaraj S/o Krishnegowda 30 years R/o Jinnenahalli Village and Post Hirisave Hobli Channarayapatna Taluk. ... Appellant (By Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, Advocate) AND 1. K.R. Nagaraju S/o. Raju Major No.1346, B Kathialli Village, Thimmagowdanakoppalu Village, Hassan District.
2. The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Subhash Square Hassan.
3. M. Shanthi W/o. Nalluswamy Major, R.C.Complex S.G.Mutt Road Chamarajapete Bangalore Bangalore District. ... Respondents (Sri.P.B.Raju, Advocate for R2 Vide order dated 25.01.2012 service of notice to R1 is held sufficient, Appeal against R3 dismissed as not pressed) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated: 03.03.2010 passed in MVC No.54/2006 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and MACT, Channarayapatna, 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:
J U D G M E N T This appeal filed by the injured claimant challenges the judgment and award dated 03.03.2010 entered by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court and MACT, Channarayapatna, allowing the claim petition in M.V.C.No.54/2006 whereby, a compensation of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum, thereon. The challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation and also for levying the liability on the insurer.
2. The learned counsel for the claimant contends that the compensation as awarded is too much on the meager side and that the MACT was not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.
4. The learned panel counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-03-A-5062 had no insurance policy although the Goods Tanker bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AC-9459 had a policy.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the claimant/appellant and the learned panel advocates for the insurer of the vehicles in question.
6. The MACT after adverting to the pleadings and after appreciating the evidence on record has awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- which cannot be lightly interfered with. No fault also can be found with regard to the liability having been confined to the owners of the offending vehicles in the ratio of 50:50, nor for not levying the liability on the insurance company.
In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-