Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2008 (KAR)

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. K. Hanumantha Reddy

2020-10-06

HEMANT CHANDANAGOUDAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Hemant Chandanagoudar, J. - These appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2011 passed in MVC Nos.1019/2010 and 1020/2010 by the MACT-XI at Bellary. 2. It is the fact that the claimant sustained accidental injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to respondent No.2. The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989. 3. The tribunal has awarded compensation amount of Rs.8,000/- with cost and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. in MVC No.1019/2010 and in MVC No.1020/2010, the tribunal has awarded compensation amount of Rs.4,79,850/- with cost and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, the insurance company has filed these two appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that he is not questioning the liability fastened on the insurance company in the view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, (2017) AIR SC 3668 . He submits that in MVC No.1020/2010, the tribunal has erred in determining permanent disability of the claimant at 35% when the disability certificate at Ex.P10 does not disclose that as to 50% of the permanent disability is suffered to the whole body or a particular part of the body. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals justifies the award passed by the tribunal. 6. I have perused the materials on record. 7. After perusing the materials on record tribunal by considering the fact that the claimant was working as a mason determined permanent disability at 35%, even though the disability certificate issued by the doctor does not disclose as to whether the disability is to the whole body or particular part of the body. After appreciating the evidence on record, I do not find any infirmity in the findings given by the tribunal. Hence, no ground is made out to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The amount in deposit is to be transmitted to the concerned tribunal for disbursement in accordance with law.