Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd vs Uddavva W/O Malakari Kotre on 3 August, 2022
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
M.F.A.NO.102077/2015 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMADEV GALLI
BELAGAVI, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, ARIHANT
PLAZA, KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR
HUBLI - 580 023
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGIONAL MANAGER ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI R.R. MANE, ADV.)
AND;
1. SMT. UDDAVVA
W/O. MALAKARI KOTRE
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
DAIRY FARMING AND HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEKHALI, TAL ; RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI
2. SMT. SEVANTI
W/O. RAMESH KHILARE
-2-
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
DAIRY FARMING AND HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. MEKHALI, TAL: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI
3. SHRI SIDRAM S/O. MALAKARI KOTRE
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
SHEPHERD AND DAIRY FARMING
R/O. MEKHALI, TAL: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI
4. SHRI SURESH
S/O. MALAKARI KOTRE
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
SHEPHERD AND DAIRY FARMING
R/O. MEKHALI, TAL: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI
5. SHRI PUNDALIK
S/O. MALAKARI KOTRE
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
SHEPHERD AND DAIRY FARMING
R/O. MEKHALI, TAL: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI
6. SHRI VITHAL
S/O. MALAKARI KOTRE
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
SHEPHERD AND DAIRY FARMING
R/O. MEKHALI, TQ: RAIBAG
DIST: BELAGAVI
7. SHRI RAJU SHANKAR @ METARI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. MALI GALLI, RAIBAG
TAL: TAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI, ADV. FOR R1;
-3-
SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR R7;
NOTICE TO R2 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O
DTD.20.11.2017)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.04.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.2217/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT RAIBAG, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.8,85,107/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT RATE OF 6%
PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli submits that he
also appears for respondent Nos.2 to 6 notice to whom
has been dispensed with. Sri Shriharsh A. Neelopant,
learned counsel appears for respondent No.7.
2. Though this matter is listed for admission
today, with the consent of all the parties, matter is taken
up for final disposal.
3. The Insurance Company is in appeal
challenging the liability as well as quantum of
compensation awarded in MVC No.2217/2014 on the file
of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Raibag dated
10.04.2015.
4. The brief facts, which are necessary for
disposal of the appeal are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act contending that on 20.03.2014,
at about 12.00 noon, the deceased-Malakari Shivappa
Kotre @ Kotri was moving towards High School in his
right hand side on Raibag-Mekhali Road on bicycle, to
bring water, at that time a bolero jeep bearing
registration No.KA-23/MA-6302 came from Raibag side
and dashed against him, whereby he sustained grievous
injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital,
Raibag in an ambulance. Thereafter, he shifted to Jadhav
Hospital, Miraj and again he shifted to Neuro Surgery
Hospital and ICU of Dr. Satyajeet Patil at Sangli. Despite
best treatment, after eight days he succumbed to the
injuries and therefore, laid a claim petition stating that
claimants who are dependants of the deceased have
sought for awarding suitable compensation.
5. In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent
Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed
written statement denying the entire claim petition
averments in toto.
6. The Tribunal raised necessary issues and after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, allowed the claim petition in a sum of
Rs.8,85,107/- as the compensation.
7. Sri R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the appellant
- Insurance Company vehemently contended that the
deceased was aged 17 years and there is a delay of three
days in filing the complaint and computation of quantum
of compensation by the Tribunal is on the higher side and
sought for reduction of compensation by allowing the
appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 to 6 contended that amount of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and in view of
the fact that no compensation awarded on the head of
filial affection as per the judgment rendered in United
India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur
and Others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131. He also
sought for awarding future prospects as per the judgment
of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and
prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. In reply, Sri R.R.Mane submitted that as per
the charge sheet also deceased is aged about 65 years.
Therefore, taking of future prospects would not arise.
Therefore, he sought for allowing the appeal by reduction
of compensation.
10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for the parties, the sole point that would
arise for consideration is -
"Whether the appellant has made out a case for
reduction of the compensation?"
11. In the case on hand, the accidental death of
the deceased Shri Malakari Shivappa Kotre is not in
dispute. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.1,01,235/- is spent on
medical expenses. The Tribunal has taken notional
monthly income in a sum of Rs.8,000/- but in the
absence of proof of income, the Tribunal ought to have
taken Rs.7,500/- as notional income for the accidental
claim of the year 2014. Likewise, all these factors would
be taken into account and taking note of the fact that
each of the claimant would be entitled for Rs.40,000/-
towards filial compensation as per the judgment of
United India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Satinder Kaur and Others reported in 2020 ACJ 2131.
When the quantum of compensation is re-assessed, the
claimant would be entitled Rs.7,91,235/- as against a
sum of Rs.8,85,107/-.
12. Insofar as contention of learned counsel for
the appellant, there is a delay of three days in filing the
complaint. It is found from the records that delay has
been properly explained as the injured was shifted to
Government Hospital at Maharashtra and therefore, the
delay is sufficiently explained and there is no contra
evidence placed by the Insurance Company by examining
the Officer of Insurance Company to show that vehicle is
not involved. Accordingly, said contention cannot be
countenanced in law.
13. Accordingly, the point is answered in the partly
affirmative and pass the following -
ORDER
1. The appeal is allowed in part.
2. In modification of the award passed by the
Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.7,91,235/- with interest 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization.
3. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal and balance
amount is to be deposited by the insurance
company within four weeks from the date of
receipt of the certified copy of this order.
4. Office to draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KA
