Karnataka High Court
Vishal S/O Hiralal Thokale vs Tanaji S/O Sandipan Sargar And Ors on 10 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MFA NO.200200/2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Vishal S/o Hiralal Thokale,
Age: 27 years, Occ: Contractor,
R/o Chadchan, Tq: Indi,
Dist: Vijayapura-586 101.
... Appellant
(By Sri.Koujalagi Chandrakanth Laxman, Advocate)
AND:
1. Tanaji S/o Sandipan Sargar,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o Dhayati (Saragar Vasti),
Tq: Sangola,
Dist: Solapur-411107,
State of Maharashtra.
2. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
S.S.Front Road, Bijapur,
Dist: Vijayapura-586101.
3. Ashok S/o Hiralal Thokale,
Age: Major, Occ: Contractor,
2
R/o Bhima Nagar, Sangola,
Tq: Sangola, Dist: Solapur-411107.
State of Maharashtra.
4. The Manager,
The India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Gurukul Road, Bijapur,
Dist: Vijayapura-586101.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Sanganabasava.B.Patil, Advocate for R1;
By Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, Advocate for R2;
By Sri. Sanjay.M.Joshi, Advocate for R4;
R3 served)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the
records. To modify the judgment and award dated
20.11.2018 passed in MVC No.1698/2013 on the file of the
Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge and
Member of Motor Accident Claims No.IV, Vijayapura at
Vijayapura and allow this appeal to grant the
compensation of amount by Rs.23,30,000/- only as
claimed by the Appellant before this Hon'ble Court, in the
interest of justice and equity. Order for costs of this
appeal and etc.
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimant assailing
the judgment and award dated 20.11.2018 in
MVC.No.1698/2013 on the file of the MACT-IV & III
Addl. District Judge, Vijayapura ("the Tribunal" for
short) seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The claimant/pillion rider was injured in a
road traffic accident that occurred on 07.09.2013.
When he was travelling on the motorbike bearing
registration No.MH-45/U-614 as a pillion rider, the
driver of Mahindra Maximo Plus pick up vehicle
bearing registration No.MH-45/7084 drove in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the bike. It
is contended that the claimants suffered fracture on
left leg above the knee and finger amputation at little
finger apart from the injuries to the chest and other
parts of the body and that he was inpatient and spent
around Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It is
contended that he is permanently disabled due to the
accident and he is aged about 20 years old and was
earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as a
contractor.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent
No.1/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and
respondent Nos.2 to 4 appeared through their counsel
and filed their written statement.
4. Learned counsel for respondent
No.2/insurer of Mahindra pick up Vehicle contended
that respondent No.1 has violated the policy
conditions and also denied that the accident occurred
due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
Mahindra pick up vehicle bearing registration No.MH-
45/7084.
5. Learned counsel for respondent
No.3/owner of the bike contended that the accident
was not due to the rash and negligent riding of the
bike, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the
Mahindra pickup vehicle.
6. Respondent No.4/insurer of the bike
contended that the rider of the bike and the driver of
the Mahindra pick up vehicle were not holding valid
and effective driving licence and the bike owner has
violated the policy conditions and that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
Mahindra pick up vehicle and sought for dismissal of
the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioner proves that he has
sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle
Accident that was taken place on
07.09.2013 at about 03:15 PM, infront
of road of Panchayati Samiti, Sangola
due to rash and negligent driving of
Mahindra Maximo Plus Pick Up Vehicle
bearing its Reg.No.MH-45/7084 by its
driver involved in this case, as
contended?
2. Whether this tribunal has got
jurisdiction to try and decide this
petition?
3. What is just and reasonable
compensation amount for which
petitioner is entitled for? If so, what
amount, what interest and from whom,
it is recoverable?
4. What is final order or Award?
8. In order to substantiate his claim, claimant
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to
P-5 and on the other hand, the respondents examined
one witness as RW.1 and got marked documents at
Exs.R-1 and R-2.
9. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings,
oral and documentary evidence on record held that
the claimant is entitled for global compensation of
Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of the petition till realization.
10. Being unsatisfied with the amount of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants
are in appeal.
11. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance
company.
12. Sri. Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
would contend that the award of compensation of
Rs.20,000/- only as global compensation is much on
the lower side and would contend that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not
appropriate to the injuries sustained by the claimant
and hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the
insurance company/respondent No.2, Sri Sudarshan
M., would contend that the award of compensation of
Rs.20,000/- is looking into the injuries of the claimant
and thus the award of compensation is just, fair and
proper compensation and it does not call for any
interference by this Court.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and having given our anxious consideration to
the material on record, perusal of Ex.P-5 the medical
legal certificate discloses that the claimant sustained
contusion over left thigh, CLW over left knee and CLW
over left little finger top. The claimant was examined
on 07/09/2013 in Dr. Lavathe Hospital. Though
learned counsel for the claimant would contend that
there is permanent disability to the claimant, no
document is forthcoming regarding this aspect.
However, Ex.P-5 clearly discloses the fact that there
were only two grievous injuries and one simple injury
sustained by the claimant and it nowhere discloses
that there is amputation of little finger and fracture of
the left leg as contended by the learned counsel for
the claimant. Looking into all angles and on careful
perusal of the material on record, it would clearly
justify the award of compensation by the Tribunal to
the extent of Rs.20,000/- as just and proper.
However, looking into the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and the injuries sustained
by the claimant insofar as Ex.P-5 is concerned, we
deem it just and proper to award global compensation
of Rs.30,000/= with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
15. For the reasons stated supra, we pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The claimant is entitled for global
compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of claim petition till realization apart from
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
(iii) The judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal dated 20.11.2018 passed in
MVC.No.1698/2013 stands modified.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
S*
