IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A. NO.8101 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. T.S.VENKATESH S/O SADAPAA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O B14/3, B TYPE, DRDO QUARTERS, SIR. C.V.RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 093.
(BY SRI. K.T.GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND:
1 . M/S HDFC ERGO GEN. INSURANCE CO. LTD., MOTOR CLAIMS HUB, NO.25/1, SHANKARA NARAYANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS MANAGER.
2 . MR. GIRISHA B.M., S/O K.MUNIYAPPA, 18, BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE, NADAVATHHI POST, KADUGODI VIA, BENGALURU-560 067 ... RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.04.2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.3377/2016, ON THE FILE OF 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 ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimant lays a challenge to the judgment & award dated 03.04.2018, whereby the MACT, Bengaluru SCCH-19 having favoured MVC No.3377/2016 has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The challenge is on the ground that what is awarded as compensation is on the meager side.
2. In a vehicular accident that happened on 29.02.2016 because of rash & negligent driving of offending car bearing registration No.KA-53/A-0504, the claimant having sustained grievous injuries was hospitalized and treated. His claim petition in MVC 3377/2016 was resisted by the respondent-insurer by filing the Written Statement.
3. To prove his claim the claimant got himself examined as PW-1; the Physician namely Dr.Surendranath Shetty who had treated the injured claimant was examined as PW-2; from the claimant’s side 16 documents came to be marked and they comprised of Police Papers, Medical Papers, etc. From the side of respondent-insurer, its official Mr. R.Jayashekara was examined as RW-1 and another person namely Shreedhar was examined as RW-2; in their evidence three documents came to be marked as per Ex.R-1 to R-3 which are two MLC extracts and one Authorization Letter.
4. The MACT having adverted to the pleadings of the parties and having weighed evidentiary material on record, has entered the impugned judgment & award which the claimant complains to have caused loss & prejudice to him inasmuch as he was entitled to more compensation than is awarded.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the claimant and having perused the appeal papers, this court declines to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the MACT by a reasoned decision has awarded the compensation which cannot be termed as less than what the claimant is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case. The other reason for not accepting this appeal is that, the MACT has awarded the annual interest at the rate of 9% when legally admissible in normal circumstances is only 6%. No lacuna having been demonstrated, the matter does not call for indulgence.
Appeal being devoid of merits, is rejected.
SNB/DS Sd/- JUDGE