Irappa S/O Kareppa Ramapur vs The Divisional Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 2041 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 09 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

             M.F.A. CROB No.100088/2016
                         C/W
             M.F.A.No.102832/2015 (MV)

IN M.F.A. CROB No.100088/2016

BET WEEN

IRAPPA S/ O KAREPPA RAMAPUR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICU LT URE,
R/O: SOMAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SOU NDATT I, DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                      ...CROSS OB JECTOR
(BY MISS. PRIYANKA F.B ORGER FOR
 SRI. VIT THAL S.TEL I, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
      NAT IONAL INSU RANCE COMPANY LIMIT ED,
      1 S T FLOOR, 1732 PRAB HU BU ILDING,
      RAMDEV GALL I, B ELAGAV I.

2.    MOU LASAB S/O RAZ AKSAB B AGEWADI,
      AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BU SINESS,
      R/O: KOU LPET, MURGOD,
      TQ: SOU NDATTI, DIST : B ELAGAVI.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

     THIS M.F.A. CROB IN MFA No.102832/ 2015 IS F ILED
U/O. 41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/ W. SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT ,
AGAINST THE JU DGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 22.06.2015
PASSED IN MVC No.27 23/ 2012 ON T HE FILE OF THE S ENIOR
CIVIL JU DGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
                             2




CLAIMS TRIB UNAL, SOUNDATT I, PARTLY       ALLOWING THE
CLAIM  PET IT ION FOR COMPENSAT ION        AND  S EEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

IN M.F.A.No.102832/2015

BET WEEN

NATIONAL INSRUANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIV IS IONAL OFFICE,
RAMDEV GALLI, B ELGAV I,
REP.B Y THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFF ICE,
ARIHANT A COMPLEX ,
KU SUGAL ROAD, HUB LI,
REPRES ENTED BY ITS DEPU TY MANAGER.
                                             ...APPEL LANT
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    SRI. IRA PPA S/O K AREPPA RAMAPUR,
      AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
      R/O: SOMAPU R VILLAGE,
      TQ: SOU NDATTI, DIST : B ELAGAVI.

2.    MR.MOULASAB S/O RAZ AKSAB B AGEWADI,
      AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BU SINESS,
      R/O: KOU LPET, MURGOD,
      TQ: SOU NDATTI, DIST : B ELAGAVI.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY MISS. PRIYANKA F.B ORGER, FOR
 SRI. VIT THAL S.TEL I, ADVOCATES FOR R1)
(R2- NOTICE SERV ED)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DAT ED 22.06.2015, PASSED IN
MVC No.2723/ 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MEMB ER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS      TRIB U NAL, SOU NDATTI,  AWARDING      THE
COMPENSATION OF ` 2,92,700/- WITH INTER EST AT THE
RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PET IT IONS T ILL ITS
REAL IZ ATION.
                                      3




      THIS MFA CROSS OB JECTION A ND THE A PP EAL
COMING ON FOR ADMISS ION, T HIS DAY THE COU RT
DEL IVERED THE F OLLOW ING:

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal and cross objection are filed by the

insurer and the claimant challenging the judgment and

award dated 22.06.2015 passed by the Court of

Senior Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Saundatti

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity)

in MVC No.2723/2012.

2. Though this appeal and the cross-objection

are listed for admission, with the consent of the

learned counsels appearing for the parties, the same

are taken up for final disposal. The parties are

referred to by their rankings before the Tribunal for

the purpose of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal

and cross-objection are:

On 01.05.2011, the claimant was traveling as a

pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing registration

No.KA-22/EF-1097 along with his relative Chidanand

Somappa Gorabal and the offending Mahindra vehicle

bearing registration No.KA-24/6503 which was driven

in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against

the motorcycle in which the claimant was traveling as

a pillion rider and had caused the accident in which

claimant suffered grievous injuries and was admitted

in a private hospital for the purpose of treatment. It

is under these circumstances, the claimant had filed

a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act') in MVC

No.2723/2012 claiming compensation from the owner

and insurer of the offending vehicle bearing

registration No.KA-24/6503. The said claim petition

was partly allowed by the Tribunal and a

compensation of `2,92,728/- with interest at 6% per

annum was awarded and the liability to pay the

compensation was saddled on the insurer of the

offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation, the insurer as well as the claimant are

before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the insurer submits

that the claimant himself had stated before the

Tribunal that his monthly income was `4,500/- and

inspite of the same, the monthly income was

considered by the Tribunal at `6,000/- per month. He

submits that in addition to the same, the Tribunal

has taken 40% of income towards loss of future

prospects and awarded compensation which has

resulted in awarding a higher compensation. He

accordingly prays to allow the appeal.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the claimant submits that the Tribunal has not

awarded any compensation towards loss of amenities

in future life. She submits that the compensation

awarded towards pain and suffering and on other

heads is also on the lower side and accordingly she

prays to enhance the compensation awarded to the

claimant and allow the cross-objection.

6. The claimant had suffered fracture of radius

shaft middle 1/3 r d in the accident in question in

addition to the other minor injuries. The material on

record would go to show that he was treated as an

inpatient for a period of six days. The doctor who had

treated him had been examined before the Tribunal

as PW2. He has spoken to the injuries and also about

the disability certificate issued by him as per Ex.P12

and has deposed before the Tribunal that the

disability to the particular limb was at 35%. The

Tribunal has assessed the whole body disability at

12% which is correct. The Tribunal in addition to the

same has also taken into consideration 40% of the

claimant's income towards his future prospects which

is not permissible in law. Since the claimant had

contended that his income was `4,500/- per month as

on the date of the accident, the Tribunal ought to

have taken into consideration the said income of the

claimant and awarded compensation accordingly. In

the said event, the claimant would be entitled for a

sum of `1,16,640/- towards loss of future earning

due to disability as against `2,17,728/- awarded by

the Tribunal.

7. Towards pain and suffering, the claimant is

entitled for a sum of `30,000/- as against `15,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation awarded

by the Tribunal towards incidental expenses, medical

expenses and towards loss of income during laid up

period remains unaltered. The Tribunal has not

awarded any compensation to the claimant towards

loss of amenities in future life and therefore under

the said head, the claimant is awarded a sum of

`30,000/- as compensation. Therefore in all, the

claimant is entitled for a total compensation of

`2,36,640/- as against `2,92,728/- awarded by the

Tribunal.

8. The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as

it relates to rate of interest, disbursement and

deposit of the compensation amount etc., remain

unaltered.

9. The amount in deposit in MFA

No.102832/2015 is directed to be transferred to the

Tribunal for the purpose of disbursement.

Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by the insurer is

accordingly partly allowed and cross-objection is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK