IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A.NO.8843 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN SRI. SOMASHEKAR, S/O NATHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MARALAKERE, G.MALLIGERE POST, KRISHNARAJPET, MANDYA DISTRICT-750 023. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T, ADVOCATE) AND 1. TATA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.69, II FLOOR, JP AND DEVI JABHOKESWARI MARKET, NEAR ICICI 1ST SQUARE, MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 052.
2. SAM TOURS AND TRAVELS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, R.NAVEEN, NO.14/38, MODEL HOUSE STREET, 1ST BLOCK, DVG ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, SHAMANNA PARK, BENGALURU-560 050. … RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02/05/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.1481/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XV ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-19), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimant lays a challenge to the judgment & award dated 2.5.2018 whereby the claim petition in M.V.C.No.1481/2017 having been favoured; compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum subject to usual condition of bank deposit has been awarded. The challenge is on the ground of inadequacy of compensation.
2. In a vehicular accident that happened on 3.1.2017 because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car bearing Registration No.KA-01-AF-5770, the appellant having suffered grievous injuries, had preferred claim petition that was stoutly resisted by the other side by filing the Written Statement.
3. To prove his case, the petitioner got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked as many as 13 documents which inter alia comprised of Police Papers, IMV Report and Medical Papers. From the side of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor any document was got marked. The MACT having adverted to the pleadings of the parties and having weighed the evidentiary materials on record, has made the subject impugned judgment & award.
4. This court having perused the Appeal Papers and having considered all aspects of the matter, declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) The MACT after looking to the evidentiary material more particularly the deposition of doctor who had treated the injured claimant, has recorded a finding that the fractures have rejoined and therefore, no case is made out to the effect that the incapacity whatever was occasioned by the subject injuries still continues;
(b) even going by the table containing the heads and the award of compensation thereon at Para 24, no reasonable person trained in law can agree with the contention that the award of compensation is on the lower side, more specially when the MACT has granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum qua the usually admissible rate of 6% per annum.
In the above circumstances, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE cbc