Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Maresh @ Marappa S/O Siddappa on 26 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
MFA No. 100793 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100793 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103688 OF 2015
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100792 OF 2016
IN MFA NO.100793/2016
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI
NOW REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HULIGESH @ DODDAMANI HULIGESH
S/O. HULEPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. EX-LOADER
Digitally signed
by MANJANNA R/O. CHORANUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUKA
E NOW RESIDING AT HALLIPURA IN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BALLARI TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
KARNATAKA
2. CHINNAPURI S/O. BHEEMAPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. THIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
3. S. POMPANNA S/O. MARAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY
R/O. UPPARA HALLI VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUKA
DISTRICT: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
MFA No. 100793 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.281/2013 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL XII, BALLARI, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ETC.
IN MFA NO.103688/2015
BETWEEN:
HULIGESH @ DODDAMANI HULIGESH
S/O. HULEPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. EX-LOADER
R/O. CHORANUR VILLAGE IN SANDUR TALUK AND
NOW RESIDENT OF HALLIPURA IN
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHINNAPURI S/O. BHEEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER
R/O. THIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
2. S. POMPANNA S/O. MARAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY
R/O. UPPARA HALLI VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. KOLLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
R-1 AND R-2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED BY
THE MACT-XII, BALLARI, IN MVC NO.281/2013 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
MFA No. 100793 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
IN MFA NO.100792/2016
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MARESH @ MARAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. EX-LOADER,
R/O. CHORANUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUKA ,
NOW RESIDING AT HALLIPURA IN BALLARI TALUKA,
DISTRICT: BALLARI.
2. CHINNAPURI S/O. BHEEMAPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. THIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
3. S. POMPANNA S/O. MARAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY,
R/O. UPPARA HALLI VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.280/2013 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL XII, BALLARI, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
MFA No. 100793 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents on admission.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
MFA No.100792/2016 and MFA No.100793/2016 are filed by the Insurance company challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.280/2013 and MVC No.281/2013 dated 14.08.2015 by Member, MACT-XII, Bellari and MFA No.103688/2015 is filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as they are referred to in the claim petitions before the tribunal.
Perused the judgment and award of the tribunal.
3. The only point raised by the Insurance company is that the claimants were traveling on 08.01.2002 in goods vehicle Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA.35/3180, which was going to HRG Mines, Sandur for loading the iron ore and when -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739 MFA No. 100793 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No. 100792 of 2016 the said vehicle reached near Maliyamma Temple at about 12 noon, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the said lorry turned turtled on the left side of the road. Hence, the claimants sustained injuries and immediately they were shifted to Government Hospital, Sandur for treatment. This led to registration of FIR and investigation.
4. Considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4, documents at Exs-P1 to P13 and the oral evidence of RW.1, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.95,900/- in MVC No.280/2013 and the claimant in MVC No.281/2013 was granted compensation at Rs.83,200/-. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the tribunal, the Insurance Company filed appeals in MFA No.100792/2016 and MFA No.100793/2016. The Insurance Company having admitted the quantum of liability in MFA No.103687/2015 disposed of on 23.06.2016 before Lok Adalat and therefore, the Insurance Company now cannot take up the contention that they have disputed the liability in MVC No.281/2013. Hence, now the only point that would arise for Court's consideration is: -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739 MFA No. 100793 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No. 100792 of 2016 "Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper or does it call for reduction of compensation?
5. As per the material available on record, the claimant in MVC No.281/2013 sustained fracture of left upper limb at upper 1/3rd and scratch mark on the left side of thigh on the left lower limb. As per settled law, for one grievous injury, the claimant is entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- and for one simple injury, he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.45,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering' as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'medical expenses and also attendant charges', which is not reasonable one. Hence, an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head 'medical expenses, food, nourishment, diet, conveyance charges, attendant charges etc.,'.
6. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.43,200/- under the head 'loss of future amenities' due to disability;, considering the notional income at Rs.4,500/- and disability at 5%. The accident is of the year 2002 and as per the circular issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and High Court -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739 MFA No. 100793 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No. 100792 of 2016 Legal Services committee, for the accident of the year 2002, the notional income could be taken at Rs.3,250/-.At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 32 years. Hence, the multiplier applicable would be '16', as per Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)6 SCC 121. The Doctor has issued disability at 20%, but the tribunal considered the disability at 5% which is not reasonable one. If 7% disability is assessed, then it would meet the ends of justice. If the disability at 7% of the whole body is taken, the 'loss of future income due to disability', it comes to Rs.43,680/-(Rs.3,250/- x 12 x 16 x 7/100).
7. Towards 'loss of future amenities', the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which is not reasonable one. Hence, additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the said head.
8. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. If the notional income is taken at Rs.3,250/- and three months as loss of income during treatment period, it comes to Rs.9,750/- (Rs.3,250 x 3) Thus, the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation under the following heads:- -8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739 MFA No. 100793 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No. 100792 of 2016 Compensation under different Amount in Rs.
Heads
Pain and sufferings 45,000/-
Medical, attendant, nourishment 20,000/-
charges
Loss of future income due to 43,680/-
disability
Loss of amenities 20,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period 9,750/-
TOTAL 1,38,430/-
Compensation awarded by the
Tribunal 83,200/-
BALANCE 55,230/-
9. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,38,430/- as against Rs.83,200/- awarded by the tribunal.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. MFA Nos.100792/2016 and MFA No.100793/2016 filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed.
2. MFA No.103688/2015 filed by the claimant in is allowed-in-part.
3. The judgment and award dated 14.08.2015 passed by MACT-XII, Bellari in MVC No.281/2013 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739 MFA No. 100793 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No. 100792 of 2016
4. The claimant is entitled for an additional enhanced compensation of Rs.55,230/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of its realization.
5. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company Ltd., shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
6. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced amount.
7. Draw the modified award accordingly.
8. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records.
8. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3