Karnataka High Court
Sunanda Sarjerao Mane vs Viraj Sitaram Naik on 1 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1 s t DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO.24521/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. SUNANDA SA RJERAO MANE,
AGE: 29 YEARS , OCC: HOUS EHOLD WORK,
2. KUM. S URAJ S/ O S ARJERAO MANE,
AGE: 10 YEARS , OCC: STUD ENT,
MINOR REPRESENT ED BY NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER PERITIONER NO.1
SMT. SUNANDA SA RJERAO MANE.
3. KUMARI. RAJASHREE D/ O SARJ ERAO MANE,
AGE: 7 YEA RS, OCC: STUDENT ,
MINOR REPRESENT ED BY NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER PERITIONER NO.1
SMT. SUNANDA SA RJERAO MANE.
ALL ARE RESIDEN CE OF R/ O.JUREW ADI.
TQ: KHAVATEMAHANKAL,
DIST: SANGLI ,
NOW AT KATRAL,
TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELA GUM-591304.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SANJAY S .KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1 . SHRI. VIRAJ SITA RAM NAIK,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O.H.N O.803, TI SK USGA O,
PONDA , GOA- 403401.
(OWNER OF TI PPER TRUCK
NO.GA-01/T-7176)
2 . THE NATIONAL IN SURANCE COM PAN Y LTD.,
PONDA BRANCH,
2 N D F LOOR,
MEGAJIDADA,
MANSION, ABOVE DENA BANK,
PONDA- 403401.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARUNA R. DHESHPANDE, AD VOCATE FOR R2)
(R1 N OTICE SERV ED)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 29.02.2012 PA SSED IN MVC
NO. 1952/ 2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT , AT ATHANI, PARTLY ALLOWING CLAIM
PEITION F OR COM PENSATION AND S EEKING EN HCEMENT OF
COMPENSTION .
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMI SSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT , D ELIV ERED THE F OLLOW ING:
3
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated
29.02.2012 passed by learned presiding Officer, Fast
Track Court, Athani, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC
No. 1952/2010, this appeal is filed by claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Though this matter is listed for admission,
with consent of both side, it is taken up for final
disposal.
3. Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for
claimants submitted that on 31.05.2010 at about 2
p.m., one Sarjerao Pandurang Mane, a 35 year old
tipper driver, was proceeding on left side of road.
Another tipper bearing no. GA-05/T-7176 came in rash
and negligent manner dashed to Sarjerao Pandurang
Mane. He sustained grievous injuries all over body.
Immediately he was shifted to Central Hospital, Ponda.
Thereafter he took treatment at Civil Hospital, Sangli,
Dr. Modke Hospital, Miraj and Wanless Hospital, Miraj..
He died during treatment on 22.06.2010 i.e., about 22
days after date of accident. Alleging loss of
dependency due to untimely death, wife and three
children filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicle Act,, 1988, against owner and insurer of tipper
lorry.
4. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed following
issues;
1. Whether the petitioners prove
that, the accident in question was
occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of tipper truck bearing No.GA-
05/T-7176 by its driver and due to
impact of accident deceased Sarjerao
Pandurang Mane sustained fatal injuries
and died on 22.06.2010 at Wanless
Hospital, Miraj due to accidental
injuries?
2. Whether the respondentNo.2
proves that, the driver of the said
vehicle had no valid and effective
driving licence to drive the same on the
date of accident?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, for what
amounted and from whom?
4. What order or award?
5. In support of their case, claimant no.1
examined herself as PW.1. Exhibits P.1 to P.40 were
marked. On behalf of Respondent no.-2, Administrative
Officer was examined as RW.1. Copy of Insurance
policy was marked as Exhibit R.1.
6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by
its driver. It assessed compensation of Rs.1,40,000/-
and held respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally
liable to pay it with interest at 6% p.a. While passing
award, tribunal held that death of Sarjerao Pandurng
Mane was not on account of injuries sustained in
accident. Therefore, claimants were entitled to
Rs.50,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.90,000/-
towards medical expenses, food, conveyance,
attendance and other incidental charges etc.
Dissatisfied with compensation, claimants are in
appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for
claimants that as per Exhibit P.5 - PM Report and death
certificates Exhibit P.9 and P.10, Sarjerao Pandurang
Mane, died in hospital. Death occurred within 22 days
from date of accident and deceased was aged about 35
years as on date of accident and as he was not
suffering from any ailment or old age, cause of death
has to be deemed to be accidental injuries. Hence,
tribunal was not justified in denying adequate
compensation.
8. Learned counsel for respondent - insurer
supported award and opposed appeal.
9. From the above submission, occurrence of
accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
tipper lorry, and death of Sarjerao Pandurang Mane, in
the said accident are not in dispute. Tribunal
determined age of deceased as 35 years and his
occupation as driver, which are also not in dispute.
Tribunal has passed an award against insurer. Insurer
has not challenged same and therefore, liability to pay
compensation, is not in dispute. Claimants are seeking
for enhancement. Hence, point for consideration in this
appeal is:
"Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought
for?"
10. In order to establish death of Sarjerao
Pandurang Mane, in hospital due to injuries sustained
in the accident, claimants produced wound certificate
at P.3. Contents of Exhibit P.3 shows that deceased
sustained fracture of right Tibia and Fibula. Exhibits
P.14 to P.40 - medical receipts and hospital bills
indicate that he was under treatment from date of
accident. Exhibits P.9 and P.10 - death certificates as
well as PM report - Exhibit P.5 reveal that deceased
died in hospital, but, cause of death stated in PM
report is due to "Acute Myocardial interaction" i.e., due
to heart attack. Admittedly, claimants have not
examined any doctor to establish that death was due to
injuries sustained in the accident. Based on above
evidence, tribunal came to conclusion that death was
not due to accidental injuries. Said finding does not
warrant interference.
While awarding compensation towards medical
expenses and other incidental expenses, tribunal has
taken into account medical bills produced by claimants
for Rs.65,503/-. Adding compensation towards
nourishment, conveyance, attendance and other
incidental charges, it awarded Rs.90,000/.
11. Admittedly, deceased has taken treatment in
several hospitals, at different places. Claimants would
have spent considerable amount not only towards
medical expenses, but also towards conveyance
attendance etc. Though they have produced medical
bills for Rs.65,503/-, they cannot be expected to save
all the bills. Therefore, award of Rs.90,000/- towards
treatment and other incidental charges would be
inadequate. In the considered opinion of this Court, it
would be just and proper to enhance it to
Rs.1,50,000/-. The award of Rs.50,000/- separately
towards 'loss of estate' is confirmed. Accordingly, point
for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
In the result, I pass following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part.
Claimants are entitled to
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as
against Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by
tribunal, which shall carry interest
at 6% p.a.
Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for
disbursement.
Appellant is directed to
deposit balance compensation
within 6 weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this
order.
Proportion of apportionment
deposit and release shall apply as
per order of tribunal to enhanced
compensation proportionately.
Sd/-
JUDGE
A C/ p sg *
