The Branch Manager National ... vs Shashidhar Bale S/O Rajshekher ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 5079 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

           M. F. A. NO.32154 OF 2013 (MV)

BETWEEN:

THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MARGOA - GOA.
THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
RAICHUR,
NOW REPRESENTED THROUGH
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
GULBARGA.
                                        ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SHASHIDHAR BALE,
       S/O RAJSHEKHER BALE,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       OCC: SUPERVISOR & AGRICULTURE,
       R/O MASARKAL VILLAGE,
       DEODURGA TALUK,
       RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 101.
                             2




2.    MANUJANTH,
      S/O NINGAPPA AMARAVATHI HEGADAL,
      AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
      OCC: OWNER OF LORRY NO.GA-08/U-6419,
      HEGADAL, HUNGUND TALUK - 587 118.

3.    DEEPAK @ SAWANT TALAUTIKAR,
      AGED MAJOR,
      OCC: OWNER OF LORRY NO.GA-08/U-6419,
      R/O KHADAPBANDA PANDA,
      GOA NORTH DISTRICT, GOA - 403 401.

                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    NOTICE TO R2 & R3 D/W V/O DTD:09.03.2018)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
21.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.111/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT AT RAICHUR,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.1,89,100/- WITH INTEREST AT 6%
P.A.

    THIS MFA COMING ON FOR 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 respondent

No.3/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and

award dated 21.06.2013 passed in MVC No.111/2010

by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, at Raichur sitting at Deodurga.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the Claims

Tribunal. Appellant is the respondent No.3 and

respondent No.1 is the petitioner, respondents No.2

and 3 are the respondents No.1 and 2 before the

Tribunal.

3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 12.02.2007, the petitioner

along with other persons was proceeding in a jeep

bearing registration No.AP-02/C-6736. On Sirvar -

Kavital road, at about 12 p.m., near the land of one

Hanumanthareddy on the said road one mini lorry

bearing registration No.GA-08/U-6419 came for

opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed to petitioner's jeep, due to which jeep got

turtle down and petitioner sustained grievous injuries

and was hospitalized and he has spent huge money

for medical treatment. The petitioner filed claim

petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, seeking

compensation for injuries sustained in the road traffic

accident.

4. The respondents No.1 and 2 have not

appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice

and was placed exparte. Respondent No.3 -

Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and

filed written statement denying the averments made

in the claim petition and also denied the manner of

accident, age, avocation, injuries, medical expenses

and income of the petitioner. He further contended

that the driver of the offending vehicle was not

negligent in driving, and the accident was occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

jeep. It is further contended that the drivers of both

the vehicles were not holding valid and effective

driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence,

sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues.

1. Whether claimant/petitioner proves that, he sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident which took place on 12.02.2007 at about 12 p.m., on Sirvar-Kavital road near the land of Hanumanthareddy, due to rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry bearing No.GA/08/U-6419 by its driver respondent No.1?

2. Whether the claimant/petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3. What order or award?

6. The petitioner in order to prove, the claim

petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and also

examined Doctor as PW-2 and got marked the

documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. On behalf of the

respondents, the Official of respondent No.3 -

Insurance Company was examined as RW-1 and got

marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. The

Tribunal, after recording the evidence and considering

the material on record held that the petitioner has

proved that he has sustained injuries in the road

traffic accent, and the accident took place on account

of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle

by its driver. Further, recorded a finding that the

petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 10%.

Further held that the petitioner is entitled to a

compensation and consequently allowed the claim

petition in part and awarded a compensation of

Rs.1,89,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6%

p.a., and further directed the respondent No.3 to

deposit the compensation amount. Hence, the

respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable

to pay compensation amount. Being aggrieved by the

quantum of compensation awarded passed by the

Tribunal, respondent No.3 - Insurance Company has

filed this appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the respondent

No.3 and learned counsel for petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the respondent

No.3 - Insurance Company submits that the injuries

sustained by the petitioner is simple in nature. She

further submits that the Tribunal has committed an

error in recording a finding that the petitioner had

suffered permanent disability at 10%. She further

submits that the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these

grounds, she prays to allow the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that, the petitioner in order to

prove the disability sustained by the petitioner,

examined the doctor as PW-2. PW-2 has opined that

the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to an

extent of 20%. He further submits that the Tribunal

was justified in recording a finding that the petitioner

had suffered 10% of disability. He further submits

that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just

and proper and reasonable and does not call for any

interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to

dismiss the appeal.

10. Perused the records and considered the

submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

11. The point that arise for consideration is

with regard to quantum of compensation.

12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner met

with an accident and sustained injuries in the road

traffic accident. Further, in order to prove the

negligence on the part of the driver of the offending

vehicle, petitioner has produced copy of chargesheet,

marked as Ex.P3. Ex.P3 discloses that the accident

has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver.

13. Insofar as quantum of compensation is

concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the

petitioner was working as supervisor under a

contractor apart from carrying agriculture works and

he was getting Rs.10,000/- per month. In order to

substantiate the contention of the petitioner, the

petitioner has not produced any record to prove the

income. In the absence of income of proof, Tribunal

has taken the notional income of the petitioner at

Rs.4,500/- per month. In order to prove the

permanent disability the petitioner examined by the

Doctor as PW-2 was opined that petitioner has

suffered permanent disability of 20%. But, the

Tribunal has taken permanent disability of 10%. The

Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the

petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 10%.

Taking into consideration, the notional income and the

disability the Tribunal has awarded compensation of

Rs.1,89,082/-, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable. I do not find any

grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment and

award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, appeal is

dismissed.

Amount in depositing to be transferred to

Tribunal along with TCR.

SD/-

JUDGE GRD