Karnataka High Court
Sri D B Pampanna Son Of D B Obayya vs Ningappa M T Son Of Madivalar Sharanappa on 14 June, 2023
-1-
MFA No. 101052 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101052/2022 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI D. B. PAMPANNA SON OF D. B. OBAYYA,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: CAR DRIVER CUM AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: CHIKKOBANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT, HALAKUNDI VILLAG,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-577801.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JOSHNA P. DHANAVE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NINGAPPA M. T SON OF MADIVALAR SHARANAPPA,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING REG.NO.KA-16/TA-7655,
R/O: CHIKKOBANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MOLAKALMURU TALUK,
Digitally
signed by CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 535.
ROHAN
HADIMANI
T 2. S.V. PAPAIAH SON OF SANNA BORAIAH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
BEARING REG.NO. KA-16/TA-7655,
R/O: CHIKKOBANAHALLI VILLAGE,
MOLAKALMURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577535.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BALLARI 583 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.G. JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
-2-
MFA No. 101052 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.03.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XII, BALLARI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimant in MVC.No.12/2017 on the file of MACT- XII, Ballari ("the Tribunal" for short) is before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.03.2021.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. It is contended that on 02.08.2015 at 10.30 a.m., the claimant was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.16/K.2375 and in the meantime respondent No.1 being the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA.16/TA.2655 came from behind in a rash and negligent -3- MFA No. 101052 of 2022 manner and in high speed, dashed to the motorcycle in which the claimant was proceeding. As a result of which, he sustained grievous injury and was shifted to the District Hospital at Chitradurga. He had spent huge sum of amount towards medical expenses. It is stated that he was doing agricultural work and also driving the car and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 being the driver, respondent No.2 being the owner and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the offending tractor are liable to pay compensation. Accordingly he prays for allowing claim petition.
4. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have not contested the matter. Respondent No.3 filed objections before the Tribunal denying the contentions taken by the claimant.
5. On the basis of these pleadings the following issues came to be framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner proves that he has sustained bodily injuries in RTA that was occurred on 02.08.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., near Thayakanahalli-Chikkobanahalli, near Kotegal Thippeswamy, land Thayakanahalli, taluk: Kudligi, district: Ballari due to rash and negligent driving of -4- MFA No. 101052 of 2022 the Tractor bearing reg.No.KA-16/TA-7655 by the first respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
3. What order of award?
6. Claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8 in support of his contention. Respondent No.3 got marked Ex.R.1-copy of the insurance policy with consent.
7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration all these materials on record answered Issue Nos.1 in the affirmative, Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and accordingly claim petition was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of petition till realization. Respondent No.3 was directed to deposit the compensation amount.
8. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is before this Court. -5- MFA No. 101052 of 2022
9. Heard Sri Joshna P.Dhanave, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.G.Jadhav, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant had suffered two fractures but the Tribunal has awarded only nominal amount of compensation. It has not taken into consideration the permanent disability suffered by the claimant and the nature and duration of the treatment, he had undergone. Therefore the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer opposing the appeal submitted that except the wound certificate no other materials are placed before the Court to contend that the claimant had suffered any physical disability. Nothing is placed on record to contend that he had taken treatment as an inpatient for any period of time. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the wound certificate and the medicals bills, granted global compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. Even if two fractures stated to have sustained by the claimant are to be taken into consideration, the -6- MFA No. 101052 of 2022 claimant is not entitled for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
12. Perused the materials on record. The point that would arise for my consideration is as under:
"Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal calls for any interference by his Court."
13. My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following:
REASONS
14. The claimant being the rider of the motorcycle had claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. He was examined before the Tribunal as PW.1. He produced wound certificate as per Ex.P.4. According to which, he had sustained fracture of inferior public remi right side and fracture of difuse end of right radius. Apart from the same, he has produced the medical bills as per Ex.P.6. Nothing has been placed before he Court to contend that the claimant had undergone treatment as inpatient or suffered physical disability. The doctor who treated the claimant was also not examined. -7- MFA No. 101052 of 2022 Under such circumstances, The Tribunal rightly taken into consideration the nature of injuries and awarded global compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-. Considering two fractures suffered by the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. There are absolutely no materials to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant has suffered permanent disability.
15. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
2. The impugned judgment and award dated 10.03.2021 passed in MVC.No.12/2017 on the file of MACT-XII, Ballari is hereby confirmed.
Send back the Trial Court Records, if any, along with copy of the judgment of this Court.
SD/-
JUDGE EM: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23