Mahamad Pasha vs Saiyadali S/O Kousaralli
2021 Latest Caselaw 5931 Kant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 10 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI


              M.F.A.No.103726/2016 (MV)

BETWEEN:

MAHAMMAD PASHA,
S/O GULAM MUSTA FA ILAKAL,
AGE: 37 YEARS , OCC: S .D .A. IN
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE AT: GAN GAVATHI,
R/O: PRASHANTAN AGAR, TQ: GANGA VATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL- 583234.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C.JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADV OCATE)

AND

1 .   SAIYADALI S/O K OUSARALLI ,
      AGE: 28 YEARS , OCC: DRIVER OF LMV
      CAR BEA RING REG.NO.KA-19/P- 6090,
      R/O: H.NO.7, 939/ A,
      MOMINPURA GULUBURGA ,
      AT: GULBURGA-585104.

2 .   AMEERUDDIN S/O AZEEZUDDIN ,
      AGE: 41 YEARS , OCC: OWNER OF LMV
      CAR BEA RING REG.NO.KA-19/P- 6090,
      R/O: H.NO.E/ 7/ 2357,
      CHOTEPEEK GA LLI , GULBARGA ,
      AT GULUBURGA- 585104.

3 .   THE BRANCH MAN AGER,
      RELIANCE GEN ERA L INSURAN CE CO.LTD.,
      BRANCH OFFICE A T 1 S T FLOOR,
      SLV TOW ERS, 4 T H MAIN ROAD,
                                          2




       PARAVATINAGAR, BALLARI ,
       DIST: BALLARI .
                                          ... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.S URESH S . GUNDI , ADV OCA TE FOR R3;
 NOTICE TO R1 AN D R2 SERVED)

       THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1)      OF    MOTOR        VEHICLES      ACT ,    1988,    PRAYING    TO
MODIFY           THE      JUDGMENT             BY     ENHANCING          THE
COMPENSATION             AS    CLAIMED       IN     THE    CLAIM    PETITION
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT
GANGAVATHI          IN    M.V.C.NO.465/2014           DATED        23.02.2016
AND ALLOW THE A PPEAL, IN THE INT EREST OF J USTICE.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMI SSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT , D ELIV ERED THE F OLLOW ING:


                                    JUDGMENT

Challenging the judgment and award dated

23.02.2016 passed by Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T.,

Gangavathi (for short, 'tribunal') in MVC No.465/2014,

this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for

enhancement of compensation.

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission,

with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken

up for final disposal.

3. Sri B.C.Jnanayya Swami, learned counsel for

appellant-claimant submitted that in an accident that

occurred on 16.10.2011 while claimant was traveling in

Cruiser Jeep, a car bearing registration no.KA-19/P-

6090 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner dashed against jeep. In the accident, claimant

sustained grievous injuries. As on date of accident,

claimant was 37 years of age working as Second

Division Assistant in Commercial Tax Department at

Gangavathi. Claiming compensation for the same, he

filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act').

4. On contest, tribunal held that accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car and

after assessing compensation of Rs.55,000/- tribunal

passed award against driver, owner and insurer.

5. It was submitted that though wound

certificate indicated that claimant had sustained

fracture of left patella, tribunal awarded meager sum

of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/-

towards loss of amenities, Rs.5,000/- towards diet,

nourishment, attendant charges and conveyance and

Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and sought for

enhancement.

6. On the other hand, Sri Suresh S.Gundi,

learned counsel for respondent no.3-insurer supported

the award and opposed enhancement. It was submitted

that claimant did not examine doctor to establish

physical disability. It was further submitted that

claimant having continued in service, the award on an

overall consideration was just and proper and no

enhancement was called for.

7. From the above submission the only point

arises for consideration is:

"Whether claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?"

8. Admittedly claimant has continued in

occupation. As per wound certificate, a certified copy

of which was made available by learned counsel for

appellant, claimant has sustained fracture of left

patella, but claimant has not examined any doctor to

establish extent of physical disability sustained. From

Ex.P7-discharge card, it is noted that claimant was

having some difficulty in walking. Except the same

there is no evidence to establish any disability caused.

As claimant is doing desk job, tribunal has rightly

refused to grant compensation towards future loss of

income. However, claimant has sustained fracture,

compensation awarded towards pain and suffering

would be inadequate. It would be just and proper to

award a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the same.

Compensation awarded under other heads is just and

proper, no enhancement is called for. Point for

consideration is answered partly affirmative, claimant

would be entitled to a total compensation of

Rs.70,000/- instead of Rs.55,000/- awarded by

tribunal.

9. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.70,000/- is enhanced as against Rs.55,000/-

awarded by tribunal. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

      ii.    The    insurer       is    directed         to   deposit
             enhanced        compensation                within     six
             weeks    from     the          date    of    receipt    of
             certified copy of this order.

iii. Entire enhanced amount to be released in favour of claimant on proper identification.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK