0

The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the disability factor in a proper perspective: High Court of Karnataka

The medical evidence clearly established that there was a fracture of the shaft of the right femur and the claimant had sustained physical disability as per the disability certificate. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Srishananda held such in the matter of Arjun Mallappa Hadapad vs. Arjun Parappa Hadapad and Another [MFA No. 22203/2009 c/w MFA CROB No. 792/2010(MV)].

The facts of the case were associated with the owner of the offending vehicle and such an appeal and cross-objection was filed by the claimant and challenged the judgment. Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant submitted that on 7th May 2013 around 9 AM, the claimant and his brother was going to their land on Vasan Konnur road for their agricultural operation, close to the land of Huligeri at the juncture, a tractor driver rashly drove the tractor in a negligent way and crashed against the claimant. This accident injured the shaft of his femur. The claimant sought compensation for this.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, necessary issues were raised by the Tribunal allowed to claim petition in a sum of Rs 87000. The learned advocate, Sri D.B Karigar, representing the owner of the tractor, argued that the said accident as claimed by the claimant did not happen at all and also no oral or any documentary evidence was looked upon by the Tribunal. The liability was unnecessarily saddled on the owner of the tractor and prayed to allow the appeal. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Sri H.M. Dharigond, representing the claimant submitted that the disability factor was not taken into deliberation as well as the monthly income of the claimant by the Tribunal. 

The Hon’ble Court held that the available material on record depicted a panchayat was summoned initially and the panchayat decided about the appropriate compensation amount. However, the tractor driver failed to obey the settlement terms of the panchayat. After the notes of all these were taken, the Tribunal held that the claimant Arjun Hadpad sustained accidental injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. Therefore, the owner of the tractor was liable. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Srishananda ruled out that “ … Having regard to the only one fracture being suffered and only 10% disability is there for the particular limb that to assessed by a non-treating doctor, this court is of the opinion that the quantum of compensation is a sum of Rs 870000/- is just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, no case is made out for the enhancement of the compensation. Hence point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in negative… MFA No. 22203/2009 and MFA CROB No, 792/20010 are hereby dismissed.” 

Click here to read the Judgment

Judgment reviewed by Bipasha Kundu

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat