Karnataka High Court
Vithaldas S/O Chandrakant ... vs Shivashankar S/O Manik Kankane ... on 4 April, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.200726/2014 (MV)
Between:
Vithaldas S/o Chandrakant Gajakosh,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Sub-Post Master,
R/o. Dhor Galli, Bijapur-586 101.
... Appellant
(By Sri. Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman, Advocate)
And:
1. Shivashankar S/o Manik Kankane,
Aged about 38 years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Batgunaki, Tq: Indi,
Dist: Bijapur-586 161.
2. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Heralagi Building, Near Siddeshwar Temple,
Bijapur-586 101.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Rahul R. Asture, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is held sufficient)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the MV Act praying to modify the judgment and
award dated 02.07.2012 passed in MVC No.599/2011 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Fast
Track Court-I/II Bijapur At Bijapur. And allow this appeal
to grant the compensation amount by Rs.6,75,000/- only
as claimed by the appellant before this Court and etc.,
2
This appeal coming on for Final Hearing, this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
for short) has been filed by the petitioner being
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
02.07.2012 passed in MVC No.599/2011 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims
Tribunal. Appellant is petitioner/claimant, respondents
No.1 and 2 herein, owner and Insurance Company
respectively are respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the appeal are
as under:
On 8.4.2011, the petitioner along with another
person were travelling in a Tempo Trax bearing
Reg.No.KA-28-M-2979 on Indi-Halasangi PWD road at
about 14.30 hours and when they were near the land
of one Ningappa Malagar, the driver of the said Tempo
drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against a motor cycle and thereafter to a road side
neem tree. As a result of which the petitioner and
other person sustained injuries and were admitted to
the Government hospital, Indi. The petitioner spent
huge amount for the medical treatment. Hence, the
petitioner has filed claim petition along with the other
person under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming
compensation.
3.1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed separate
written statement denying the averments made in the
claim petition and denied that the accident was
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of tempo by its driver. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the claim petition.
3.2. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings
of the parties framed the issues and recorded the
evidence. In order to prove the case, the petitioner
examined himself as PW2 and got marked Ex.R1. The
Trial Court after considering the material on record
allowed the claim petition in part and dismissed the
claim petition against respondent No.2-Insurance
Company and awarded a global compensation of
Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of deposit of the entire
amount. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal filed this
appeal seeking for compensation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries but
the Tribunal has awarded a global compensation of
Rs.25,000/- which on the lower side. Hence, he prays
to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2-Insurance Company supports the impugned
judgment and award and prays to dismiss the appeal.
7. Heard and perused the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties.
8. The point that arise for consideration in this
appeal is with regard to enhancement.
9. There is no dispute that the petitioner met
with an accident on 8.4.2011 and the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle. In order to prove the
accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle, the petitioner has
produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P6. The
tribunal considering Ex.P6 has recorded a finding that
the accident was occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Insofar as
the quantum of compensation is concerned, though
the petitioner has stated that he has suffered
permanent injury, in order to establish the same, the
petitioner has not examined any doctor to assess the
actual severity of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner. The petitioner has produced the copy of
the discharge certificate which is marked as Ex.P11.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
petitioner, the Tribunal has awarded a global
compensation of Rs.25,000/- which is on the lower
side. Hence, I deem it just and reasonable to award a
global compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
10. In view of the above discussion, the
following order is passed :
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part;
ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is modified.
iii) The petitioner/claimant is entitled to a
global compensation of Rs.50,000/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till realization. Respondent No.2-
Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
the certified copy of this order.
iv) The tribunal is directed to release the
enhanced compensation with interest in
favour of the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
msr/rs
