IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM MFA NO.5062/2013(MV-GEN) BETWEEN:
SMT. KAVITHA SARANYAN W/O SARANYAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT S.D.M. YOGA AND NATURE CARE HOSPITAL QUARTERS SHANTHIVANA, DHARMASTHALA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK D.K. DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.KARUNAKAR.P, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MOHAMMED IRFAN S/O ABDUL GHANI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS FLAT NO. 22, WARD EX-SERVICEMAN COLONY, KOLBAZAR BELLARY 2. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD OFFICE NO.79, DWARAKA N.H ROAD CHENNAI 3. MR. M.H KUNUR MAJOR MALLAPUR POST RONA, GADAGA KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.881/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, PUTTUR, SITTING ITINERTE AT BELTHANGADY, D.K., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal was earlier dismissed for non- prosecution. Hence, applications are filed seeking to recall the said order. Inspite of sufficient time being granted steps are not taken for issuance of notice on respondents 1 to 3. In that view of the matter, this Court took up the matter to consider whether there is any ground to admit this appeal and to consider the same. The applications in I.A.Nos. 1 and 2/2017 are allowed. The appeal is restored to file and thereafter taken up for final disposal.
2. The claimant in MVC.No.881/2006 on the file of the MACT, Bengaluru, has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The material on record would indicate that the appellant herein while riding Activa Honda scooter bearing Regn.No.KA-21-K-1199 was hit by mini bus bearing Regn.No.KA-26-A-1738. The accident is said to have taken place near Kannyadi of Dharmasthala Village. The claimant would state she has suffered fracture of 1/3rd of right radius and ulna, fracture of fibula, degloving injury over right leg and AC1 rupture of right knee with condylar and fracture of both the bones.
In the Court below, she adduced evidence as P.W.1 in support of her claim and also got examined two persons one doctor by name Prashanth Shetty and another by name P. Shridhar, who is said to be witness to the accident. Considering the pleading and the available on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.3,22,100/- payable with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has come up in this appeal.
4. On going through the grounds of appeal and the findings therein with reference to the evidence and documents produced thereof, it is seen that the claim itself was not genuine inasmuch as the discussion at Paragraph 20 would only discloses that none of the treated doctors were willing to give disability certificate to the claimant. Therefore, she has secured the presence of P.W.2 who is not the doctor who treated her and he has issued disability certificate only for the sake of supporting her claim that too after lapse of six years. The Court below taking into consideration all these facts and looking into the merits of the case has rightly awarded compensation to the claimant which does not call for interference by this Court in enhancing the compensation contrary to the finding of the Court below. This Court finds that no grounds are made out to admit this appeal.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-