IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT M.F.A NO.9497 OF 2018 (MV) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 2ND FLOOR, J.P. & DEVI, JAMBUKESHWARI ARCADE NO.69, MILLER’S ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052.
BY ITS MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. O.MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MADHU @ MADHU T.P., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTALINGAIAH, R/AT THOTAHALLI VILLAGE, ACHALU POST, SATHANOOR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 511.
2. AJAY SHAH, MAJOR, S/O RAM NAYAN SHAH, R/AT TELI JATAHAR – 08, RAUTAHAT, NEPAL NOW, NO.188/A, 4TH BLOCK, BSK 6TH STAGE, GUBBALALA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 078. …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.08.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.280/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KANAKAPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,30,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 7.5% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT This appeal by the insurer calls in question the judgment and award dated 28.08.2018 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kanakapura has allowed the claim petition in MVC No.280/2015 by awarding a compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. subject to the usual condition of bank deposit.
2. Brief facts of the case:
a. in a vehicular accident that happened on 04.01.2014 because of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle namely Hyundai Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-MB-9609, the claimant sustained grievous injuries; his claim Petition in MVC No.280/2015 was resisted by the appellant-insurer by filing the Objection Statement;
b. to prove the claim, the claimant himself got examined as PW1; the physician who had treated the injured claimant namely Dr. Avinash Parthasarathy was examined as PW2; from the side of the claimant, as many as 21 documents came to be marked which inter alia comprised of the police papers, IMV Report and medical records. From the side of the respondents, none was examined, nor any document was got marked.
3. The MACT after adverting to the pleadings of the parties and after weighing the evidentiary material on record has made the impugned judgment and award which cannot be faltered because:
i) the contention of the appellant-insurer that the claim petition involves fraud and false implication of the vehicle concerned is very difficult to accept in the absence of foundational pleadings to that effect and supportive evidentiary material therefor; although the strict rules of pleadings are not applicable of adjudging of the claim petition, the MACT has followed the remedial principle of adjudging the claim of the claimants and there is absolutely no reason for granting indulgence in the matter;
ii) the version emerging from the claim petition as supported by two witnesses namely the claimant-PW1 and Doctor-PW2 supported by as many as 21 documents, has been rightly adjudged by the MACT in its accumulated wisdom; no different opinion can be formed by this court; and, iii) the compensation awarded for the nature of the injuries sustained and the amount spent on medical expenses including the short sum of Rs.10,000/- for future medical expenses, cannot be found fault with; the MACT has kept in view of the relevant principles for adjudging the claim for compensation which is awarded in a just and reasonable manner.
In the above circumstances, appeal being devoid of merits, is rejected in limine. The amount shall be transmitted to jurisdictional MACT for being disbursed to the claimants, forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE DS