IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B MANOHAR MFA No.4343 OF 2016(MV) BETWEEN:
SRI.K.C.KUSHALAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O.K.C.PALAGAPPA R/O.GANDHI NAGAR KOTESHWARA POST KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT – 572 011 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.K.PRASANNA SHETTY, ADV.,) AND:
1. K.G.SANTHOSH (SINCE DEAD) 1(a) BY HIS WIFE SMT.BINDU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS W/O.LATE K.G.SANTHOSH R/O.KOLANGADA HOUSE UDAYA NAGAR, MUDUR POST & VILLAGE KUNDAPURA TALUK – 572 101.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE VISHNU PRAKASH COURT ROAD, UDUPI -572 011 REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER 3. ISS SDB SERVICES PVT., LTD., C.R.COMPLEX OPP. ALVARES CENTER N.H.66, NANTHOOR MANGALORE – 572 101 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER.
4. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO., LTD., SUBRAMANYAM BUILDING CLUB HOUSE ROAD ANNASAIAI CHENNAI – 02 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 09.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1049/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated:09.03.2016 made in MVC No.1049/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Kundapura, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant filed the claim petition contending that on 24.08.2009 at about 10:00 p.m., while he was proceeding in a tempo trax bearing registration No. KA-19-D-8090 from Hubli to Mangalore side on NH.66 near Sasthana Ice Plant, Pandeshwara village, Udupi Taluk, a TATA sumo bearing registration No.KA-20-C-8030 came from Udupi side driven by its driver with a high speed, dashed against the tempo trax. Due to the impact, the claimant has sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he took treatment at Mahesh Hospital, Brahmavara as an inpatient for a period of 06 days. Prior to the accident, he was working as security guard and gunman and earning a sum of Rs.24,000/- per month. In view of the injuries sustained, he is not in a position to do the work as he was doing earlier. Hence, he sought for compensation of Rs.3,55,000/-
3. Insurance company defended the case by filing written statement.
4. After trial, the tribunal held that due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the tata sumo the accident occurred and the claimant has sustained injuries. Hence, he is entitled for compensation.
5. With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, in the accident the claimant has sustained following injuries:
1) 2x2 cms., abrasion over right leg 2) 2x2 cms., abrasion over left leg..
Though, the claimant claims that he had taken treatment at Mahesh hospital for a period of six days, no document has been produced to substantiate the same. The doctor who treated the claimant was also not examined to assess the disability he has sustained due to the accident. The injuries sustained are simple in nature. In the absence of production of necessary documents, the contention raised by the appellant cannot be accepted. The tribunal taking into consideration all these aspects has awarded a global compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal filed this appeal.
6. In the road traffic accident, the claimant has sustained two simple injuries. Ex.P6-wound certificate produced by the claimant clearly discloses the same. Though he claims that he has taken treatment at Mahesh Hospital at Brahmavara, no document has been produced to substantiate the same nor the doctor who treated him was examined to prove the same and assess the disability. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal taking into consideration two simple injuries sustained by the Tribunal has awarded global compensation of Rs.15,000/-. The claimant has not suffered any disability. Therefore, I find no infirmity or irregularity in the well considered order passed by the tribunal and the appellant has also not made out a case for interference.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE HJ