IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY MFA NO.7031 OF 2017 (MV) BETWEEN:
The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., S.S. Complex, I Floor, Subhash Square, Hassan. ... Appellant (By Sri. O. Mahesh, Advocate) AND:
1. Doreswamy S/o Thimmegowda, Aged about 39 years Haruvanahalli, Salagame Hobli, Hassan Taluk & District – 573 201.
2. Varun S/o Ramesh K.B. Kadlur Koppalu Village, K. Hosakote Post, Alur Taluk, Hassan District – 573 201. ... Respondents MFA filed u/s 173(1) of MV Act against the judgment and award dated:06.01.2017 passed in MVC No.298/2012 on the file of the Principal District and Member, MACT-I, Hassan, an award amount of Rs.1,49,500/- with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit in the Tribunal.
This appeal coming up for Orders this day, the court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 06.01.2017.
2. It is the contention of the appellant-insurance company that the Tribunal has failed to notice that the complainant who lodged the complaint at Ex.P.2 was not examined as such, there was no direct as well as reliable material evidence to prove the alleged accident. It is submitted that Ex.R.1 which is medical report discloses that the claimants have sustained injuries in a Road Traffic Accident without reference to vehicle. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for compensation under Section 166 of MV Act.
3. It is the contention of the appellant-Insurance company that the claimant has not proved that he has suffered injuries from the offending vehicle. The finding of the tribunal that the claimant has suffered disability at 15% is on higher side.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the judgment passed by the tribunal.
5. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,49,500/- and it is the contention of the appellant that as per Ex.R.2 the claimant himself is not entitled for compensation because he himself was rider of two wheeler and Ex.R.1 is not confronted. FIR discloses that the driver has been charge sheeted. The Tribunal considering evidence of the doctor and Ex.P.7 – Wound Certificate, Ex.P.8 to P.15 – Medical Bills, Ex.P.17 – X-ray film and Ex.P.18 – Commissioner Report has rightly considered the case of the claimant and awarded compensation which is just and proper.
The appellant-insurance company has not made any good grounds to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
* The amount deposited in this Court is ordered to be transferred to the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBM/AG * corrected vide court order dated 10.11.2017