Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mahadevappa S/O. Basappa ... vs Iranna S/O. Channabasappa Kabbur on 25 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A NO. 102343 OF 2018 (MV-I)
C/W. M.F.A.NO.102529/2018
IN MFA.NO.102343/18
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. BASAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND COOLIE,
R/O. MASANAGI VILLAGE, TQ:BYADAGI,
DIST:HAVERI-581106.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI NAVEEN CHATRAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. IRANNA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA KABBUR,
APMC YARD, BYADAGI,
TQ:BYADAGI, DIST:HAVERI-581106.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, HUBLI CO-OP COTTON,
SOCIETY BUILDING, OPP. BASAVA VAN,
UPSTAIRS, KAMAT CAFE N C M,
HUBBALLI-580020, DIST:DHARWAD.
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-27/X-
0706)
J
MAMATHA
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
J MAMATHA
Location: Dharwad
(BY SRI S.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
Date: 2022.04.11
10:52:48 +0530 (BY SRI RAJESH B RAJANAL, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS M.F.A. FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
2
MFA No. 102343 of 2018
C/w.MFA.No.102529/2018
21.04.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C.NO.646/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BYADAGI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA.NO.102529/18
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, HUBLI CO-OP COTTON,
SOCIETY BUILDING, OPP. BASAVA VAN,
UPSTAIRS, KAMAT CAFE N C M,
HUBBALLI-580020, DIST:DHARWAD.
(INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-27/X-0706).
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJESH B.RAJANAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA S/O. BASAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND COOLIE,
R/O. MASANAGI VILLAGE, TQ:BYADAGI,
DIST:HAVERI-581106.
2. SRI IRANNA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA KABBUR,
APMC YARD, BYADAGI,
TQ:BYADAGI, DIST:HAVERI-581106.
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.
KAR-27/X-0706).
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAVEEN R.CHATRAD, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT No.1)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)
3
MFA No. 102343 of 2018
C/w.MFA.No.102529/2018
THIS M.F.A. FILED U/S.173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.646/2014
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BYADAGI,. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND DISMISS THE
CLAIM PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA.NO.102343/2018 is filed by the claimant seeking
for enhancement and MFA.No.102529/2018 is filed by the
Insurer seeking dismissal of the claim petition.
2. The Insurer is in appeal contending that the
claimant was infact the rider of the motorcycle and
because of he did not possess a driving licence, a false
plea that he was the pillion rider had been taken before
the Tribunal.
3. In order to substantiate this contention, reliance is
sought to be placed on the entry made in the MLC, which
stated that the claimant had suffered a "self fall" and the
Doctor who had made the said entry had deposed before
the court that the attendant who brought the claimant had
MFA No. 102343 of 2018
C/w.MFA.No.102529/2018
informed him that the claimant was actually riding the
motorcycle and when he made entry recording the "self
fall", it was his intention to convey the meaning that the
claimant was himself the rider. It is also contended by the
Insurer that the assessment of disability at 17% is on the
higher side.
4. The claimant contends that the income determined
by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the amount
awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities
are meager and require enhancement.
5. The contention of the Insurer that the claimant
was a rider and that was evidenced by an entry made in
the MLC cannot be accepted because in this case after
investigation, the Police have concluded that the claimant
was the pillion rider and they have accordingly laid a
charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle.
6. In my view, since there was no independent
eyewitness to indicate who was actually riding the
motorcycle, it would appropriate to accept the averments
MFA No. 102343 of 2018
C/w.MFA.No.102529/2018
in the charge sheet that the claimant was not the rider of
the motorcycle and he was only the pillion rider. The
argument of the learned counsel for the Insurer is
therefore rejected.
7. The argument that the Tribunal had erred in
assessing the disability at 17% when the claimant had
suffered only two fractures cannot also be accepted. The
Tribunal has also noticed that the Doctor had stated that
the claimant had suffered 50% disability to the limbs of
the body and it would therefore be appropriate to take
1/3rd of the said disability for the purpose of computing
the whole body disability. Having regard to the injuries
suffered and fractures indicated in the Wound Certificate,
the assessment of disability at 16.67% by the Tribunal
cannot be found fault with and the same is affirmed.
8. The Tribunal has determined the monthly income
of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- in the absence of any
documentary evidence, in such cases, it would be
appropriate to adopt the monthly income as determined by
MFA No. 102343 of 2018
C/w.MFA.No.102529/2018
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which for
accidents for the relevant years would be at Rs.7,500/-.
Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to
Rs.2,70,054/- (Rs.7,500/- X 12 X 18 X 16.67/100)
towards loss of future earnings.
9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the fact that
the claimant suffered two fractures and he had undergone
a surgical procedure, it would be appropriate to enhance
the said sum to Rs.40,000/-. Similarly, the sum of
Rs.20,000/- awarded to the loss of amenities and future
amenities would also have to be enhanced from
Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.
10. The medical expenses awarded being based on
the documentary evidence will have to be affirmed.
11. As I have held that income of the claimant was
Rs.7,500/- per month, the compensation awarded towards
laid up period would have to be enhanced from
MFA No. 102343 of 2018
C/w.MFA.No.102529/2018
Rs.12,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. A sum of Rs.10,000/-
awarded towards incidental expenses is affirmed.
12. In all the claimant would be entitled to the
following sums :
For loss of future earnings Rs.2,70,054/-
(enhanced)
For loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/-
future unhappiness. (enhanced)
For pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
(enhanced)
For loss of income during Rs.15,000/-
laid up period (enhanced)
For incidental expenses Rs.10,000/-
(affirmed)
Medical expenses Rs.57,295/-
(affirmed)
Total Rs.4,22,349/-
13. The claimant is entitled to compensation of
Rs.4,22,349/- as against Rs.3,25,338/- awarded by the
Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% per annum instead
of 7% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly,
the appeal filed by the Insurer (MFA.No.102529/2018) is
MFA No. 102343 of 2018
C/w.MFA.No.102529/2018
dismissed and the appeal filed by the claimant
(MFA.No.102343/2018) is allowed in part.
Amount deposited in MFA.No.102529/2018 be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith for disbursement.
SD
JUDGE
CKK
