Karnataka High Court
M/S.National Insurance Company ... vs Hanamantha @ Hanamappa on 3 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON 'BLE MR.JUSTICE N .S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A.No.4002/2010 (MV)
BETWEEN:
M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DR.JAVALI COMPLEX,
SUPERMARKET, GULBARGA,
NOW REP.BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 1,
REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. ... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI N.R.KUPPELUR, ADV.)
AND:
1. HANAMANTHA @ HANAMAPPA
S/O HANAMANTHA PUJAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
1(A) SMT. RENAVVA,
W/O HANUMANT @ HANUMAPPA PUJAR,
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O HANAMAGERA, TALUK KUSHTAGI,
DISTRICT KOPPAL.
1(B) MARUTI
S/O HANUMAPPA @ HANUMANT PUJAR,
AGE:13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O HANAMAGERA, TALUK KUSHTAGI,
DISTRICT KOPPAL.
REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN
I.E., NATURAL MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1
:2:
2. SRI MOULASAB S/O RAJESAB INGALAGI,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OCC:LORRY DRIVER,
R/O HANAMASAGAR,TALUK KUSHTAGI,
DISTRICT KOPPAL.
3. SMT NOORJA,
W/O LATE MURTUZASAB LALKOL,
AGE:MAJOR, POST HANAMASAGAR,
TALUK KUSHTAGI,
DISTRICT KOPPAL. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI M.M.HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R1 (A AND B),
R2 AND R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF M.V.
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.01.2010
PASSED IN M.V.C.No.241/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND ADDL. MACT, YELBURGA AT KUSHTAGI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING
COMPENSATON OF RS.7,62,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The Insurance Company is in appeal
challenging the award of Rs.7,62,000/-.
2. The fact that the claimant suffered
serious injuries as a result of him being thrown off
from the lorry has b een estab lished before the
Tribunal by production of relevant medical
evid ence. In fact, the doctor has opined that the
claimant was not in a position to walk due to
parap legia and he was having 100% physical
disab ility. The Tribunal on consideration of the
evid ence adduced, has awarded the following
sums as comp ensation:
Sl.
N o. H ea ds A m o unt
1 P a in a n d s uff er in gs Rs . 1, 00 ,0 0 0 /-
2 M ed ic a l e xp e nd i t u re
(inc lud ing d ie t, a t t e nd a nc e,
no ur is hm e nt ) Rs . 25 ,000 /-
3 L os s of f ut ur e e a rni ng s Rs . 6, 12 ,0 0 0 /-
4 L os s of a m en it i es Rs . 25 ,000 /-
T o t al R s. 7, 62, 0 00/ -
3. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Comp any has contended that the claimant was a
fare p aying passenger and it was not liab le to pay
the compensation. He has also contended that
ad equate opportunity was not granted to the
Insurance Comp any to adduce its evid ence.
4. It has to b e stated here that the owner
of the truck admitted that the claimant was
working as a labourer. In the light of this
ad mission, the arg ument of the Insurance
Comp any that he was a fare p aying passenger
falls to the ground.
5. However, in ord er to establish that the
claimant was a fare paying p assenger and not a
labourer, the Insurance Company has not adduced
any evid ence. In fact, the Trib unal has taken note
of the fact that the official of the Insurance
Comp any, thoug h filed an affidavit, failed to
app ear b efore it and did not offer himself for
cross-examination or even for further chief-
examination and therefore, there was absolutely
no evid ence on record .
6. In my view, the reasoning of the
Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has
taken note of relevant facts and evidence and has
given a clear finding that the claimant was a
labourer engaged in the task of loading and
unloading and he met with the accid ent due to
which he has suffered 100% physical disability.
The Tribunal on consid eration of all the relevant
factors has awarded a sum of Rs.7,62,000/- which
has also been accep ted by the claimant.
7. In my view, there is ab solutely no
justification for entertaining this appeal and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted
for disbursal in terms of the award.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Jm/-
