IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR MFA NO.6480/2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
SMT. NAGAVENI W/O RAMESH AGE: 30 YEARS TAILORING & HOUSE WIFE R/O HARIYABBE VILLAGE HIRIYUR TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 572 143 ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.L. KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SMT. GAYATHRI W/O LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH AGE: 33 YEARS OWNER OF TEMPO TRAX REG.NO.KA-17/A-3858 R/O H.NO.36 THAVAREKERE VILLAGE GOWDAGERE HOBLI SIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD 1ST FLOOR, TUMKUR SHOPPING COMPLEX, B.H. ROAD TUMKUR TOWN ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M. NARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 28.01.2014) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.111/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, HIRIYUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Appellant is the claimant. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in Judgment and award dated 12.04.2011 made in MVC No.111/2010 passed by the MACT, Hiriyur, he has filed this appeal.
2. The claim petition was filed by the appellant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident which occurred on 22.01.2010 while she was proceeding in a motorcycle along with her husband as a pillion rider. The Tribunal has considered the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and the liability was fastened on the owner of the vehicle since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license.
3. The advocate appearing for the appellant filed a memo seeking dispensation of notice to respondent No.1. On the basis of the said memo, this court on 28.01.2014, dispensed notice to respondent No.1.
4. In the absence of the owner of the vehicle, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company. However, the appellant has not challenged the judgment and award fastening of liability on the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of owner of vehicle, no compensation can be enhanced.
Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv