Skip to content

Shivangouda Basangouda Patil Vs. Muttayya Danayya Chikkamath and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. First Appeal No. 816 of 1980
Reported inAIR1982Kant152; [1983]54CompCas545(Kar); 1981(2)KarLJ592
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110-B
AppellantShivangouda Basangouda Patil
RespondentMuttayya Danayya Chikkamath and ors.
Appellant AdvocateHemalatha Mahishi, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateR.H. Chandangowdar and ;K. Suryanarayana Rao, Advs.
- karnataka stamp act, 1957.[k.a. no. 34/1957]. section 2(e) & 2 (mn): [h.v.g. ramesh, j] duly stamped & market value held, when the words duly stamped and market value are clearly explained in the act and based on that if the registering authority comes to a conclusion as to what would be the proper market value and accordingly insists on the party to make such payment and on such payment, registers the document, the same would not in any way come in the way of the right of the party much less it can be treated as it is in violation of the provisions of the registration act . on facts, held, after amendment of section 45a and section 45b, the stand taken by the respondent authorities insisting upon the petitioners to deposit the amount as per the market value cannot be found fault..........the view we have taken the cross-objections filed by the owner of the vehicle are dismissed. no costs in this appeal and cross objections before this court.4. appeal partly allowed.

Sabhahit, J.

1. This appeal by the claimant injured is directed against the judgment and award dated 1-2-1980, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, in M. V. C. No. 1961 ,1978 on its file, awarding compensation of Rs. 11,000/- to him.

2. As a result of the accident that occurred on 14-5-1978 in Hanagal, at about 2 p. m., the claimant sustained fracture of the shoulder bone, mandible, in addition to other injuries of minor nature. After he was treated in the hospital, for a month, his mandible was set right by operating on him and fixing the wire to the jaw. Even after the said treatment claimant is now left with disfigurement of face and he complains that he cannot chew hard substance as before. It is also found by the Tribunal that the pinna of his left ear is disfigured being cut off. The Tribunal no doubt has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- as general damages i. e., Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering and another Rs. 5,000/- towards injury. But it has not taken into consideration the disability and disfigurement of the face. For that we deem it just and proper to add another Rs. 5,000/-. We affirm Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards special damages. In all, therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 16,000/- instead of Rs. 11,000/- awardt0d by the Tribunal.

3. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The Insurance company shall pay claimant the compensation of Rupees 16,600/- together with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of application till payment as also costs before the Tribunal. In the view we have taken the cross-objections filed by the owner of the vehicle are dismissed. No costs in this appeal and cross objections before this Court.

4. Appeal partly allowed.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //