Karnataka High Court
Ramachandra Soorappa Sagai vs Ravi S/O Narayanrao Bhosale And ... on 29 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.201291/2021 (MV)
C/w
MFA NO.201296/2021, MFA NO.201267/2021
IN MFA NO.201291/2021
BETWEEN:
LAXMAN HANAMANT NAVI,
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT AND COOLIE,
R/O: BALLOLLI, INDI TALUK,
NOW AT ADARSH NAGAR,
ASHRAM ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVI S/O NARAYANRAO BHOSALE,
AGE: 46 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: VIDYAN NAGAR,
MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(V/O DTD.20.01.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W;
BY SRI. ABDUL QAYYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF IV ADDL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
NO.XV, VIJAYAPURA IN MVC NO.399/2011 DATED
23.07.2020 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM
PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY
THE APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.201296/2021
BETWEEN:
VITHAL SOORAPPA SAGAI,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, (NOW NIL)
R/O: BALLOLLI, INDI TALUK,
NOW AT ADARSH NAGAR,
ASHRAM ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVI S/O NARAYANRAO BHOSALE,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
3
R/O: VIDYAN NAGAR, MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(V/O DTD.27.01.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W;
BY SRI. ABDUL QAYYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.XV,
VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.398/2011 DATED 23.07.2020 AND
BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY
GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE
APPELLANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.201267/2021
BETWEEN:
RAMACHANDRA SOORAPPA SAGAI,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, (NOW NIL)
R/O: BALLOLLI, INDI TALUK,
NOW AT ADARSH NAGAR,
ASHRAM ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVI S/O NARAYANRAO BHOSALE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: VIDYAN NAGAR, MUDDEBIHAL,
4
DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(V/O DTD.27.01.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W;
BY SRI. ABDUL QAYYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE M.V. ACT PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE IV
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO. XV, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA
IN MVC NO. 397/2011 DATED 23.07.2020 AND BE
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION BY GRANTING
THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FAR BY THE APPELLANT IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
All these three appeals are arising out of the
common judgment dated 23.07.2020 passed in MVC
Nos.397/2011, 398/2011 and 399/2011 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-XV, Vijayapura (for short
hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims
Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and
respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeals are
as under:
On 21.02.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. one
Ramachandra i.e., the petitioner in MVC.No.397/2011
was riding the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28/S-3730
by carrying other two petitioners as pillion rider by name
Sri Vithal in MVC.No.398/2011 and Sri Laxman in
MVC.No.399/2011 at Talikoti. Sri Ramachandra i.e., the
petitioner in MVC.No.397/2011 was riding the
motorcycle slowly and cautiously and when they reached
near Fattepur village on Talikoti-Devar Hipparagi Road,
at that time, another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
28/K-7935 being rode by its rider in a high speed and in
a rash and negligent manner dashed to their motorcycle
and caused the accident, due to which, the petitioners
sustained injuries and spent huge amount for medical
treatment. Hence, the petitioners filed claim petitions
under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on
account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident.
4. Respondent No.1 has filed the common
written statement denying the averments made in the
claim petition. He further denied the manner of the
accident and nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioners and denied the permanent disability suffered
by the petitioners on account of the alleged accident.
Further, it is contended that the said vehicle was insured
with respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 is liable to
pay the compensation. Hence, on these grounds, he
prayed to dismiss the petitions against respondent No.1.
5. Respondent No.2 has filed the writ statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition and it
is contended that the petitioner has violated the terms
and conditions by carrying two pillion riders. Therefore,
there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the
offending vehicle. Hence, on these grounds, he prayed
to dismissed the petitions.
6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the common issues:
7. The petitioners examined themselves as
PWs.1 to 3 and in order to prove the disability,
examined the doctor as PW.4 and got marked the
documents as Exs.P-1 to P-23. The respondents
examined four witnesses as RWs.1 to 4 and got marked
the documents as Exs.R-1 to R-7.
8. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence
and considering the material on record, allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.3,91,400/- in MVC.No.399/2011, Rs.1,53,600/- in
MVC.No.397/2011 and Rs.2,58,200/- in
MVC.No.398/2011 along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. Further held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
9. The petitioners being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants
have filed these appeals seeking for enhancement of the
compensation.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants
and also the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants
submits that in order to prove the disability, the
petitioners have examined the doctor as P.W.4 and has
opined that the petitioners have suffered the permanent
disability and further submits that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, he
seeks for enhancement of the compensation and prayed
to allow the appeals.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal. He further submits that
respondent No.2 has already satisfied the petitioners by
depositing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal. Hence, on these grounds, he prayed to dismiss
the appeals.
13. Heard and perused the records and
considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties. The point that arises for consideration is
with regard to quantum of compensation.
14. It is not in dispute that the petitioners met
with an accident and sustained injuries in the road traffic
accident. In order to prove that the accident
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have
produced the copy of the charge sheet marked as
Ex.P-8. Ex.P-8 discloses that the accident was occurred
due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
offending vehicle. In order to prove the disability of the
petitioners, they have produced the disability certificates
and marked as Exs.P-15, P-17 and P-19. Considering
the evidence of P.W.4 and disability certificate issued by
P.W.4, this Court reassessed the compensation amount.
Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the global
compensation of Rs.30,000/- in MFA.No.201267/2021
and Rs.35,000/- in MFA.No.201296/2021. Insofar as
MFA.No.201291/2021 in MVC.No.399/2011, wherein the
Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Master Mallikarjun vs.
Divisional Manager, The National Insurance
Company Limited and another reported in ILR
2013 KAR 4891 and considering the disability at
13%, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment and award passed in
MFA.No.201291/2021.
15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeals in MFA.Nos.201267/2021
& 201296/2021 are allowed.
ii. The appeal in MFA.No.201291/2021 is
dismissed.
iii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
The petitioners are entitled for the
global compensation of Rs.30,000/- in
MFA.No.201267/2021 and Rs.35,000/-
in MFA.No.201296/2021 along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petitions till the date
of realization.
iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit
the enhanced compensation amount
within a period of eight weeks from
date of the receipt of certified copy of
this judgment.
v. The Tribunal is directed to release the
enhanced compensation amount in
favour of the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ssb
