IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT M.F.A. No.5328 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN MANAGER-LEGAL, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., #89, II FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BENGALURU-560 068. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. PRAMODA N. SHETTY, W/o NARASIMHA SHETTY, NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.35, I MAIN, KALYANNAGAR, NAGARBHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-72.
2. SRIDHAR M.J., S/o JAYARAMAGOWDA, MAJOR, NO.100, 14TH CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT, NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU-72. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. PUTTASWAMY & SRI K.T.MADHU, ADVOCATES FOR C/R; NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED 02.08.2013; R2 SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.02.2010 PASSED IN MVC.NO.3663/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, BANGALORE (SCCH-14), AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,08,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the Insurer calls in question the judgment and award dated 08.02.2010 made by the MACT, Bangalore City (XVI Addl. Judge), allowing the claim petition in M.V.C.NO.3663/2009 whereby, a compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- with interest, at the rate of 6 % per annum, is awarded. The challenge is on the ground of award of excessive compensation.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer contends that regard being had to the nature of the injuries and the kind of treatment the claimant had undergone, the amount awarded by way of compensation is far in excess of entitlement and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set-at-naught. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that what has been awarded is on the basis of evidentiary material placed on record which the MACT as an expert statutory body has duly considered and therefore, there is no warrant for interference of this court in the matter.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurer and the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant; I have perused the Appeal Papers and also the original LCR.
4. There is no dispute as to the happening of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant which are prima facie established by the police records that are marked in the deposition of claimant as PW.1. These documents include the FIR, Mahazar, Sketch of the accident, IMV Report and the Charge Sheet i.e., Exhibits P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4 and P.6 respectively. The injuries sustained by the claimant are prima facie shown by Wound certificate at Exhibit P.5 and the Discharge Summary at Exhibit P.7, Medical Bills are at Exhibit P.8 series, the Laboratory Reports are at Exhibit P.10 and the Medical Prescriptions are at Exhibit P.9; photographs are also marked as per Exhibit P.11. All these aspects have been duly gone into by the MACT which has made the award.
5. The finding recorded by the MACT, a statutory adjudicatory Tribunal having the advantage of accumulated wisdom cannot be lightly interfered with, merely because it is possible to have a different view of the matter. No glaring defects of law or facts are shown in the matter.
In the above circumstances, this appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be remitted to the jurisdictional MACT for being disbursed as compensation to the respondent- claimant, after ascertaining the credentials, forthwith.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc