Dismissed

Beerappa S/O Siddappa Pujari v. Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

Karnataka HC17 Jul 2013MFA/30046/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a miscellaneous first appeal against an Accident Claims Tribunal award of Rs. 3,000. The court held that the claimant failed to produce medical prescriptions or certificates to substantiate injury claims, leading the Tribunal to disbelieve the version of injuries sustained.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's award of Rs. 3,000 affirmed. Counsel for respondent granted time to file vakalath.

Beerappa S/O Siddappa Pujari Vs Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶2

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30046/2013 (MV)

¶7

Between:

¶8

Beerappa, S/o Siddappa Pujari, Aged about 37 years, Occ; Agriculture & Coolie, Now nil, r/o Adavi Somanal, Muddebihal Tq. 586 212. …. Appellant.

¶9

(By Sri H.R. Mali Patil, Adv.)

¶10

And:

¶11

1 Motilal Satappa Naik, Aged about 37 years, Occ:Agriculture & Business, R/o Hullur, L.T.Muddebihal 586 212.

¶12

2 The United India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Divisional Manager, S.S.Front Road, Bijapur 586 101. …. Respondents.

¶13

(By Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, Adv. for R2 Notice to R1 dispensed with)

¶14

¶15

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 24.3.2012 in MVC No.136/2009 on the file of the Accident Claims Tribunal No.VIII at Muddebihal, etc.

¶16

This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in

¶19

MVC No.136/2009 dated 24.3.2012 on the file of the Accident

¶20

Claims Tribunal No.VIII, Muddebihal.

¶21

The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle. The appellant has filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the accident occurred on 23.3.2009. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation.

¶22

Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The claimant has not produced any documents before the Tribunal in order to establish that he had

¶23

¶24

sustained injury in the accident. Further, he has not even produced the medical prescription or the wound certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the claimant that he has sustained injuries in the accident.

¶25

Having perused the judgment and award and also the other materials on record, I am in total agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal in granting Rs.3,000/- towards compensation. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

Smt. Anuradha Desai, learned Counsel is granted four

¶27

weeks time from today to file vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE.

¶30

BMM/-

Beerappa S/O Siddappa Pujari v. Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beerappa S/O Siddappa Pujari v. Motilal Satappa Naik and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bankimroy S/O Upanroy Vs Shivayogi Swami

Smt. Sakubai W/O Kalidas Kadam Vs Nijamuddin S/O Mainuddin Shaikh and Anr.

Abdul Raheem S/O Mohammed Osman Anr. Vs Abdul Razak S/O Abdul Anr.

Smt. Mangalamma W/O Late Vijayakumar Vs Rangayya Swamy Alias Gangayya S/O Virupakshayya

Mahamood S/O Chandsab Shaikh Vs Malleshappa S/O Shivaraya Walikar and Anr.

Karadappa S/O Basanna Vs Basavaraj S/O Manik Anr.