Karnataka High Court
Irappa S/O Nagappa Marakatti vs Shivanand S/O Shivalingappa Angadi on 29 May, 2018
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
M.F.A. NO.101932/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN
IRAPPA S/O NAGAPPA MARAKATTI
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: MASON, NOW NIL, R/O: MARADI
NAGALAPUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADV.)
AND
1. SHIVANAND S/O SHIVALINGAPPA ANGADI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: BENDIGERI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.Y.KATAGI, ADV. FOR R2,
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
19.03.2012 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.2201/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT - II
AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BELGAUM, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
JUDGMENT
Heard.
Though this matter is listed for consideration of I.A. No.1/2015 for condonation of delay of 1114 in fling this appeal, with consent of learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the insurer the same is heard on merits for final disposal.
2. This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2012 in M.V.C. No.2201/2010.
3. The claimant filed the instant claim petition contending inter alia that he suffered following injures:
"1. Abrasion 2x2 cm over posterior aspect of left elbow.
2. Tenderness over right hip joint.
3. Tenderness over left elbow joint.
4. The claimant produced medical bills for Rs.3,623/-. The Doctor examined on behalf of the claimant has deposed that the claimant suffered 15% disability due to injury in the lumbar area. The Tribunal :3: on consideration of the material on record has allowed the medical expenses of Rs.3,500/- and awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings; and in all awarded Rs.63,740/-.
5. Arguing in support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded towards pain and suffering and disability are in adequate.
6. It is relevant to notice that the medical bills submitted by the claimant accounted for Rs.3,623/-. In the given circumstances, it leads to an inference that the claimant did not take any treatment as an 'inpatient' and the injuries suffered were not serious. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,500/- towards medical expenses and in all awarded Rs.63,740/-.
7. In order to justify the delay in filing, the appellant has stated thus in the affidavit:
"2. I state that I have filed claim petition in MVC No.2201/2010 before the :4: Addl. M.A.C.T. Belagavi and same was came to be allowed in part. I further state that I have filed this appeal challenging said award in this appeal. I further state that there was communication gap between me and my advocate who was appearing in the trail Court as I was fell ill due to the injuries suffered in the accident as such I was unable to contact my advocate after passing of the award by the Addl. MACT, Belagavi and I was staying in my wife's home as such I did not get the information about the disposal of the case.
3. I state that in the few month that is on 22/02/2015 one of the relatives have received the information that my MVC case was came to be disposed off and my advocate has informed me to come and meet. Thereafter I went to my advocate and collected the papers and prepared to file this present appeal.
4. I state that I was unaware of the fact that the case was disposed off by the trail Court due to my health conditions as I am not finance sound as such I went to my wife's house parents house to take help and :5: to counties further treatment. Therefore for the bonafide reasons I was prevented from filing the present appeal in time. I further state that I have got a very good case on merits and if the delay in preferring the above appeal will not be condoned I will be put to greater hardship and irreparable loss. On the contrary no loss or hardship will be caused to the other side."
8. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides on merits, I find no justifiable grounds to interfere with the judgment and award, as also the application for condonation of delay.
In the circumstances, I.A. No.1/2015 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh