Dismissed

Sri. Manjunath a. v. Vs Sri. Abdul Khayam

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2024MFA/6946/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appellant's challenge to the Tribunal's award of Rs. 10,243 towards pain, suffering, and medical expenses arising from a motorcycle accident, holding the amount was just and proper. concurred that the Tribunal correctly depreciated injuries and dismissed the suit.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Tribunal is upheld.

Sri. Manjunath a. v. Vs Sri. Abdul Khayam — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:8768 MFA No. 6946 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6946 OF 2015(MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATH A.V S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SUPERVISOR, R/AT M.S.FARM, TANGALI ROAD, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 548.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SOMESH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJARAM.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. ABDUL KHAYAM S/O ANVER PASHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, DRIVER OF K.S.R.T.C. BUS BEARING REGN NO.KA-09/A-2055, BADGE NO.6115, R/AT BEECHANAHALLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 114.

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K.S.R.T.C., CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., KENGAL, HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:8768 MFA No. 6946 of 2015

¶18

SMT. M.P.KUMUDASHREE D/O M.S.PALAKSHA, MAJOR, R/AT NO.56, MADHAVI, 5^TH MAIN, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSORE-570 001.

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.371/A, 3^RD FLOOR, PRESTIGE COMPLEX, RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSORE-570 001.

¶20

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE COMPANY , M.G.PALACE, GOPI CIRCLE, SHIMOGA-577 201.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 16.02.2022; BY SMT. B.P.RADHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3; SRI. P.NATARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶23

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:13.02.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.123/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT, KADUR, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶24

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR HEARING-INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:8768 MFA No. 6946 of 2015

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Sri.Somesh., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Rajaram.S., for the appellant, Sri.H.S.Lingaraj., learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., learned counsel for respondent No.6 have appeared in person.

¶29

Though the appeal is listed today for hearing on interlocutory application, the delay is condoned and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, it is heard finally.

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.

¶31

It is the case of the claimant that on the 11^th day of March 2006, at about 7:00 a.m., he was riding his motor cycle Hero Honda bearing Registration No.KA:14/S-2947 in a slow manner and observing all traffic rules and regulations. At that time, near K.S.R.T.C. bus stand, the first respondent was driving the bus bearing Registration No.KA:09/A-2055 in a rash and negligent manner without observing all traffic rules and regulations came in a high speed and hit the claimant's vehicle. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:8768 MFA No. 6946 of 2015

¶33

his leg and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kadur. He was admitted as an in-patient at Government General Hospital, Kadur for 15 days and as per the advise of the doctor, he took treatment as an out-patient for six months and took rest for three months. Contending that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus, claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation.

¶34

After the issuance of the notice, respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6 appeared through their counsel and respondents 1, 2, 5 & 6 have filed their respective objections and respondent No.3 filed memo adopting the objections filed by the respondent No.2.

¶35

In response to the notice, respondent No.4 did not appeare and hence, he was placed ex-parte. The petition against respondent No.5 was dismissed. In the statement of objections the respondents urged several contentions and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶36

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and parties led evidence and marked the documents.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:8768 MFA No. 6946 of 2015

¶39

The Tribunal vide Judgment dated:13.02.2013 partly allowed the claim petition. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Miscellaneous First Appeal.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Judgment of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence on record and law.

¶41

Next, he submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre.

¶42

A further submission is made that the appellant is having 40% total disability to his limb, however, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount towards medical expenses.

¶43

Lastly, he submits that viewed from any angle the compensation is liable to be enhanced. Counsel therefore, submits that the appeal may be allowed.

¶44

Learned counsel Sri.H.S.Lingaraj., and counsel Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., justified the Judgment passed by the Tribunal and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:8768 MFA No. 6946 of 2015

¶47

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective

¶48

parties and perused the appeal papers with utmost care.

¶49

The point that requires consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?

¶50

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the claimant filed claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per the Wound Certificate the claimant suffered two simple injuries i.e.,

¶51

Lacerated wound over Left thigh with swelling measures about 2x1 cms.

¶52

An abrasion over Left knee measures about 2x1 cms.

¶53

Taking note of the material evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards pain and sufferings and Rs.5,243/- (Rupees Five Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Three only) towards medical expenses, in all a sum of Rs.10,243/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

¶54

Two Hundred and Forty Three only). It is pivotal to note that for simple injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:8768 MFA No. 6946 of 2015

¶57

in a petition filed under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act is just and proper. I find no reason to interfere with the judgment. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶58

Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is

¶59

dismissed .

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri. Manjunath a. v. Vs Sri. Abdul Khayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunath a. v. Vs Sri. Abdul Khayam

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

Smt K Shanthamma W/O Jagadeesha Vs the Milk Producer Co-Operative Union Ltd.

Somashekar Vs M/S. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd

Sri Chandraiah Vs Sri Chandra Shetty

Slns Transport Vs Smt Manjula

Mr Mohan T Vs Mrs Vasantha T

Thammaiah Vs a M Nagaraja