Sri K C Venkatareddy Vs the Divisional Controller

¶1

1 -

¶2

MFA No. 4248 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4248 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI K.C. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O CHINNAREDDY, R/O KALLINAYAKANAHALLI, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-561 208.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER APSRTC, APSRTC BUS STATION COMPLEX ANANTAPUR - 515001 ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE AWARD AMOUNT WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. TILL THE REALIZATION PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT GOWRIBIDANUR IN MVC NO.24/2014 BY JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.06.2016 AND ETC.

¶16

2 -

¶17

MFA No. 4248 of 2017

¶18

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 21.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶20

CAV JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is by the appellant/claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation arising out of judgment and award dated 10.06.2016 in MVC No.24/2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Gowribidarnur, (for short ‘Tribunal’).

¶22

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal for easy reference.

¶23

3. The brief facts of the case are that:-

¶24

On 14.11.2013 at about 1.45 p.m., the petitioner

¶25

was traveling as a pillion rider on Hero Honda Splendor Plus Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-L-1757 near New Dhaba, RMC Market, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapur Distrcit, at that time, APSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.AP-02Z-0199 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

¶26

3 -

¶27

MFA No. 4248 of 2017

¶28

against the petitioner’s motorcycle. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, Gowribidanur and later shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bengaluru. Hence, filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1989 seeking for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

¶29

After issuance of notice, the respondent has appeared through its counsel but inspite of sufficient opportunities, the respondent has not filed its objections.

¶30

In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.43. On the other hand, respondents neither examined nor adduced any evidence.

¶31

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and held that the respondent/Corporation is liable to pay a total compensation of Rs.40,800/- to the petitioner with interest

¶32

4 -

¶33

MFA No. 4248 of 2017

¶34

at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Ex.P.5, copy of wound certificate, appellant has sustained abrasions (Rt) knee 3 x 2 cms, lacerated wound (Rt) Gluteal region 15x5x2 cms, abrasion (Rt) Temporal Region 5 x 4 cms, Abrasion (Rt) lower Eye lid 2 x 2 cms, abrasion over chin 2x2 cms which are simple in nature. As per Ex.P.41 – discharge summary, petitioner was treated as an inpatient from 14.11.2013 to 20.11.2013. The Tribunal has not properly considered the case of the appellant and awarded meager compensation under all heads, which require enhancement. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal and enhance compensation by modifying the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Tribunal after considering entire material placed before it, awarded appropriate compensation. The

¶37

5 -

¶38

MFA No. 4248 of 2017

¶39

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the

¶41

parties and perused entire material on record.

¶42

It is not in dispute that the appellant has suffered the injuries stated supra . However, it is seen that the compensation awarded under various heads are on the lower side. Taking into consideration the treatment taken and injuries suffered, we are of the considered view that the claimant would be entitled for total compensation as a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶43

Respondent – Corporation shall deposit the above compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶44

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶45

6 -

¶46

MFA No. 4248 of 2017

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The appeal is allowed in-part .

¶49

ii. The judgment and award dated 10.06.2016 in MVC No.24/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC at Gowribidanur stands modified.

¶50

iii. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶51

iv. The appellant/claimant is not entitled for interest for the delay period of 233 days in filing the appeal.

¶52

v. The respondent – Corporation shall deposit the amount within eight weeks from the date of award.

¶53

vi. Upon deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of appellant on proper identification in terms of award.

¶54

vii. No order as to costs.

¶55

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶56

MH/-

Sri K C Venkatareddy v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K C Venkatareddy v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Puttamma Vs Sri C Puttaswamy Gowda

Smt Muniyamma Vs Sri Muniya

Smt Mustar Taz Vs Smt Jowhar Taz

Mr Felix Minezes Vs Mr Bharath Bavani Shankar

National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs Sri Subramani

Dr Vijaya Sarathi Vs Sri Mahesha