This is an appeal against the award in a motor vehicle case. The appellant sought enhancement of compensation beyond Rs. 75,000/- despite lacking independent expert evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal.
The appeal seeking enhancement of compensation was dismissed. The trial court records were returned to the Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5342 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PAPANNA ALIAS PUTTASWAMY, S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 6TH CROSS, GULAHARIVE PALYA, GULUR HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L. SRIKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
NC: 2023:KHC:40293 MFA No. 5342 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.857/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.857/2014 dated 01.12.2016. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road accident.
NC: 2023:KHC:40293 MFA No. 5342 of 2017
the said accident, the claimant fell down on the road and sustained injuries.
Ex.P.5, the claimant had sustained laceration over right knee measuring 0.5 x 2 c.m., laceration over right leg anterior aspect measuring 0.5 x 1 c.m., tenderness over right thigh and right leg and abrasion over 4th toe of right leg measuring 1 x 1 c.m. It further reveals that the second injury is grievous in nature and the other three injuries are simple in nature. In support of his case, except examining himself as PW.1, no other witness is examined. When it comes to the exhibits, Ex.P1 to P.4 are the police documents, Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate, Exs.P.6 to P.26 are the medical bills, Ex.P.27 is the medical prescriptions, Ex.P.28 is the discharge summary,
Ex.P.29 is the discharge card and Ex.P.30 to Ex.P.34 are the Medical Reports. Except filing the wound certificate and the medical reports, the claimant has not examined any doctor in support of the said injuries and the
treatment that he had taken. Considering all these aspects, the Court below had granted global compensation of an amount of Rs.75,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the claimant is before this Court.
submits that when the Court below had accepted the medical reports which show that he had sustained grievous injuries, the Court below ought to have considered the compensation on all grounds. Instead of doing so, the Court below had granted global compensation of an amount of Rs.75,000/- which is not appropriate. Learned counsel further submits that it shows that there is a fracture and when he has sustained a fracture, he requires some amount for his treatment and when the injury is to the ankle, it would have an impact on
his future prospects. All these aspects were not considered by the Court. Learned counsel submits that the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal was not just and reasonable compensation.
per the cause title, it is shown that the vakalath is not filed. Learned counsel submits that he has filed the vakalath on 05.02.2020.
the learned counsel of the claimant is that once the wound certificate is considered, the Court below has to grant compensation on all other heads without there being any other evidence and wound certificate and the medical records itself is sufficient. This Court is not able to appreciate the said submission. Even if the fracture is taken into consideration, for one fracture, he would be entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- and for the medicines, as there is no other evidence, and as for the bills, even some guess work is done. The Court below had rightly granted an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation and this Court finds no reason to interfere.
dismissed.
i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay.
ii. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/JUDGE
MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 97 CT: BHK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for injuries sustained in a road accident is reasonable without examining an additional doctor.
Whether global compensation of Rs. 75,000/- is appropriate given the grievous nature of the injuries.
Whether evidence of medical bills and prescriptions is sufficient to justify enhancement of compensation without an expert examination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PANNAPPA ALIAS PUTTASWAMY
G.N. RAMESH
THE MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
