IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.4853 OF 2009 (MV) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROB No.137 OF 2012 (MV) IN M.F.A.No.4853/2009 (MV) BETWEEN:
Sri.C.Venkatareddy S/o Chinnappareddy @ Chinnappodu Hindu Major R/of Junjanahalli Village Murugamalla Hobli Chintamani Taluk. …..Appellant (By Smt.S.Susheela, Advocate) AND:
1. Singeerappa S/o Venkatarayappa Hindu Major Aged about 30 Years KSRTC Driver Chintamani Taluk (Driver of the vehicle Bg.No.K.A.07-E-6171, Hero Honda) 2. Sri.V.Narasimhaiah S/o Venkatarayappa Aged about 53 Years Employee, Canara Bank Hosakote Branch Hosakote Taluk Bangalore District.
3. The New India Assurance Co., (Reptd. By its branch Manager) Begalur Mansion 2nd Floor, Big Bazar, Kolar – 563101. …..Respondents (By M/s.Mylaraiah Associates, Advocates, for R-1 & R2, Sri.M.Narayanappa, Adv., for R-3) This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2009 passed in M.V.C.No.50/2000 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) & JMFC, Member, MACT, Chinthamani, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
IN M.F.A.CROB.No.137/2012 (MVC) BETWEEN:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mansion, 2nd Floor, Big Bazar, Kolar – 563101. Rep. by the Sr.Manager New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office XI Tower Block, 4th Floor Unity Building, J.C.Road, Bangalore – 02. …..Cross Objector (By Sri.Narayanappa, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri.Venkatareddy S/o Chinnappareddy @ Chinnappodu Age: Major R/of Junjanahalli Village Murugamalla Hobli Chintamani Taluk.
2. Singeerappa S/o Venkatarayappa Aged about 42 Years KSRTC Driver Naravamakalahalli Village Chintamani Taluk.
3. Sri.V.Narasimhaiah S/o Venkatarayappa Aged about 65 Years Employee, Canara Bank Hosakote Branch Hosakote Taluk Bangalore District – 85. …..Respondents (By Smt.S.Susheela, Advocate) This MFA CROB in MFA.No.4853/2009 is filed under Section 41 Rule 22 of CPC, against the judgment and award dated 28.02.2009 passed in M.V.C.No.50/2000 on the file of Civil Judge ( Sr.Dvn) & JMFC, MACT, Chinthamani, awarding a compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 6% P.A., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
This appeal and Cross Objection coming on for final hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T In MFA CROB.No.137/2012, learned counsel Smt.S.Susheela, is permitted to accept notice on behalf of the respondent.
2. The appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award passed by MACT, Chinthamani (‘Tribunal’ for short) in MVC.No.50/2000 whereby the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The Insurer has filed the Cross Objections in the said appeal challenging the said judgment and award of the Tribunal. Cross Objections filed by the insurer is placed before this Court with certain office objections, not complied with by the cross objector.
4. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) contemplates that no appeal shall lie against any award of a claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.10,000/-. The same analogy applies to the Cross Objections also. Hence, the Cross Objections filed by the insurance company challenging the liability of compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.
5. As regards the appeal filed by the claimant, it is discerned that the claimant has sustained the following injuries as per the wound certificate at Ex.P-4.:
1) Wound of 7 cms. length over left eyebrow.
2) Wound of 5 cms. length below left eye.
3) Bleeding from left nostril.
6. These are all the simple injuries as could be evidenced from the wound certificate. Merely for the reasons that the claimant has examined three doctors as PW-2 to PW-4, it cannot be held that the claimant is suffering from the disability resulting in loss of future income as contended by the claimant. In the absence of satisfactory evidence placed on record to establish the factum of loss of earning capacity owing to functional disability due to the accidental injuries sustained, no further compensation can be awarded over and above the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
7. No grounds made out by the claimant to enhance the quantum of compensation.
8. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC/KMV.