IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.5299/2019(MV) BETWEEN:
MR. MARSHEL RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE SALVADOR RODRIGUES, RESIDING AT GUNDAJE, MIYAR VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 104. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI AKASH B SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . SRI. K. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O C PADMANABHA, RESIDING AT RANGARAYA COMPOUND, KALLAGUDDE, KARKALA TALUK-574 104. (PROP: KRISHNA TIMBERS, JODUKATTE, MIYAR POST, KARKALA TALUK,UDUPI DISTRICT) 2 . UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, CITY TRADE CENTRE TEMPLE ROAD, KADRI MANGALORE – 575 003.
…RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173 (1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.03.2018 PASSED IN MVC No.632/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC AND AMACT, KARKALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The matter is listed for orders. I.A.No.1/2019 is filed to condone the delay of 357 days in filing the appeal. Having regard to the nature of the case and accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support thereof, delay of 357 days in filing is condoned and accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 is allowed and the matter is taken up for final disposal.
The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.03.2018 passed in MVC No.632/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Karkala, wherein the claim petition filed by the claimant came to be allowed in part and the compensation of Rs.1,85,420/- is awarded with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and directed the insurance company to deposit the same.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred to with their rankings as held by them before the Tribunal.
3. The facts relating to accident are that:
That on 12.09.2015 at 2.00 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding in his cycle from Pulkeri to Kariyakallu in Karkala-Kudremukh National Highway and when he reached in front of Abharana Motors, Pulkeri, the driver of Crane bearing Reg.No.KA.20.Z.3770 which was also proceedings towards Bajagoli dashed to the petitioner’s cycle on the backside, as a result, petitioner fell down sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to City Hospital, Karkala and thereafter to Father Muller’s Hospital, Kankanady, Mangalore, admitted as inpatient for 17 days. He spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenditure and also other incidental charges.
Prior to the accident, he is an agriculturist and due to accidental injuries he is not able to do the agricultural work.
4. The respondents appeared on service of notice and opposes the claim petition.
5. The learned member adjudicated the matter on the basis of the oral evidence of PW- 1 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P16 on behalf of petitioner and oral evidence of RW1 and documentary evidence of Exs. R1 to R3 on behalf of Insurance Company, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation as mentioned above. Being dis satisfied with the quantum of compensation, petitioner has presented this appeal seeking enhancement.
6. Sri. Akash B. Shetty, learned counsel for appellant/claimant would submit that compensation awarded by the learned Member is on the lower side and disproportionate to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner.
7. The petitioner has sustained degloving injury on the right foot, peroneus longus tendon injury right foot which are grievous in nature and lacerated wound over right side of knee, abrasion over right leg which are simple in nature. Petitioner has not examined the Doctor who treated him. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under:
8. In the light of the fact that, no specific disability is sustained by the petitioner, I find the amount of Rs.1,85,420/- awarded by the Tribunal if not bifurcated would also fit into the grew of global compensation.
There is no necessity to interfere in the judgment and as such no further proceedings is required. Appeal is devoid of merits and the same is rejected at this stage itself.
Sd/- JUDGE tsn*