Smt Bharathamma B K Vs Sri Chowdappa

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3433/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, (SCCH-15), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,96,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶27

IN MFA.CROB NO. 14/2024

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT CAUVERY NAGAR HALASAHALLI, CROSS VARTHUR BENGALURU - 560087.

¶30

...CROSS OBJECTOR

¶31

(BY SRI. P SURESH.,ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

BHARATHAMMA B K W/O CHANDRAPPA R R/AT NO 230, BODHANAHOSALLI HOSKOTE -TQ BENGALURU RURAL DIST.

¶34

THE PROPRIETOR/INCHARGE MANAGER DUNGARWAL INVESTMENTS SESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560020.

¶35

...RESPONDENTS

¶36

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28218 MFA No. 9578 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 14 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

THIS MFA. CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.15.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.3433/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-15), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

THIS MFA AND MFA. CROB IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

IN MFA.No.9578/2017:

¶43

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant is present and learned counsel for the appellant is absent.

¶44

MFA.9578/2017 was filed in the year 2017 by

¶45

the owner of the vehicle along with I.A.No.1/2017 seeking condonation of delay of 822 days in filing the appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 15.06.2015 passed in MVC No.3433/2014 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT,

¶46

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28218 MFA No. 9578 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 14 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Bengaluru. The appellant has also filed I.A.No.2/2017 for stay, but the appellant has not appeared before the Court.

¶49

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 stated

¶50

that the appellant has not deposited any amount till date. The owner of the vehicle did not possess valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. As such, the liability was fastened upon her. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred the present appeal with a delay of 2 years 3 months and stated that she and her husband are agriculturists by profession and that she is not in a good financial condition. Therefore, she was unable to incur the travel expenses required for pursuing the appeal.

¶51

The judgment of the Tribunal was passed on 15.06.2015. Appellant's counsel did not inform her about the judgment. She came to know of the same only when she received Court notice in EP.No.49/2016. Thereafter, her counsel informed her that she was required to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the statutory deposit for filing the appeal. As she has no financial source, she could

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28218 MFA No. 9578 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 14 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

not pay the said amount. Hence, there was delay in filing the appeal.

¶55

Admittedly, the owner of the vehicle did not

¶56

have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability upon her. The appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 2 years 3 months and the reasons stated for the delay are neither convincing nor satisfactory. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed.

¶57

In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.1/2017, MFA.No.9578/2017 also stands dismissed and pending Interlocutory application does not survive for consideration.

¶58

IN MFA.CROB.14/2024:

¶59

I.A.No.1/2024 is filed to condone the delay of

¶60

28 days in filing the cross-objection. I.A.No.1/2024 is allowed and delay of 28 days is condoned.

¶61

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28218 MFA No. 9578 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 14 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

MFA.CROB.14/2024 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 15.06.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.3433/2014 on the file of the XIII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru.

¶64

The injured claimant met with an accident on 02.07.2014 and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.3,96,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%

¶65

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶66

Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has preferred the present cross-objection and mainly contended that he sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment from 02.07.2014 to 16.07.2014. He underwent surgery involving fixation of implants to the bones in his leg. It is further contended that he was working as a security guard and earning Rs.9,000/- per

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28218 MFA No. 9578 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 14 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

month. The Tribunal has granted meager amounts under other heads. Therefore, he requested for enhancement of the compensation.

¶70

Though the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. The claimant has produced Ex.P5-Wound Certificate and Ex.P6-Discharge Summary. He has also examined the doctor as PW.2. PW.2 stated that the claimant sustained fractures of both bones of the left leg, pubic diastasis, fracture of the left inferior pubic ramus, fracture of the left acetabulum, fracture of the right clavicle, and fractures of the 4^th to 8^th ribs on the right side. PW.2 further stated that the claimant was treated surgically in the form of closed reduction and internal fixation with intramedullary interlocking nailing on 12.07.2014 and was discharged on 16.07.2014. On clinical and radiological examination and on the basis of the complaints of the claimant, it is found that the fractures of both bones of the left leg had malunited with implants in situ; the pelvis and both hips

¶71

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28218 MFA No. 9578 of 2017 C/W MFA.CROB No. 14 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

showed a left inferior pubic ramus fracture; and the right clavicle had also malunited. Therefore, PW.2 assessed the disability as 33.09% to the left lower limb but the Tribunal has taken the whole-body disability as 25% and has granted reasonable amounts under other heads. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶74