Karnataka High Court
Shri.Sanjay vs Shri.Mahadev Uituba Yadav on 23 May, 2022
Bench: Krishna S Dixit, P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 101892 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101892 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI.SANJAY
S/O SITARAM NAGARE,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: AT PRESENT NIL,
R/O: UCHAGAON-591128,
TALUKA AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT SUNANDA P PATIL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI.MAHADEV UITUBA YADAV,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,
(OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE
NO.MH-10/DB-7543)
SMT.SUJATA W/O MAHADEV YADAV,
AGE: 55 YEARS,
OCC: HOMEMAKER,
R/O: VITHALAPUR-415301,
TAL: ATAPADI,
DISTRICT: SANGALI,
MAHARASTRA STATE.
2. SHRI.AJAY S/O MAHADEV YADAV,
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
-2-
MFA No. 101892 of 2016
R/O: VITHALAPUR-415301,
TAL: ATAPADI,
DISTRICT: SANGALI,
MAHARASTRA STATE.
3. PRATIKSHA MAHADEV YADAV,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: VITHALAPUR-415301,
TAL: ATAPADI, DISTRICT: SANGALI,
MAHARASTRA STATE.
4. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001,
POLICE ISSUING OFFICER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD., SAMBRA MENTION 290,
MAHAVEER NAGAR,
VAKHARBAUG, SANGALI
(INSURER OF MOTORCYCLE BEARING
NO.MH-10/DB-7543.
5. SHRI.DEEPAK N. SHINDE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: DIGHANCHI-415315,
TALUKA: ATAPADI,
DIST: SANGALI,
MAHARASTRA STATE,
(OWNER OF TRAILER MAHINDRA
AND MAHINDRA NO.MH-45/S-4928).
6. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MADIWALE COMPLEX,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001,
POLICY ISSUING OFFICE
BAJAJ ALLIANZ CO. LTD.,
D3D4, 2ND FLOOR,
ROYAL PRESTIGE,
SIKES EXTENSION,
SHAHAPURI,
-3-
MFA No. 101892 of 2016
KOLHAPUR-416008,
(INSURER OF TRAILER NO.
MH-45/S-4928).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R1-R3 AND R5 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.,
SRI.S.S.KOLIWAD, ADV., FOR R4;
SRI. R.R. MANE, ADV., FOR R6)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17/2/2016 PASSED IN
MVC.N O.1561/2012 ON HE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
judgment award dated 17th February 2016 passed in
MVC.No.1561/2012 by the VIII Additional MACT (VIII
Additional District and Sessions Judge) Belagavi whereby a
compensation of Rs.61,000/- with interest at the rate of
9% per annum subject to the usual condition of bank
deposit, has been awarded.
2. After service of notice, respondent - Insurer
having entered appearance through its panel counsel
opposes the appeal making submission in justification of
MFA No. 101892 of 2016
the impugned award and the reasons on which it has been
structured.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and having perused appeal papers, we are inclined to
grant a marginal indulgence in the matter as under and for
the following reasons:
(a) There is no much dispute as to the vehicular
accident that happened on 25.05.2012 because of rash &
negligent driving of the offending tractor. The bone of
contention is the quantum of compensation and not the
foundational factors. There is some force in the vehement
submission of the learned counsel for the claimant as to
the injuries being grievous and the longevity of
hospitalization. However, there is no evidentiary material
on record that the claimant was an inpatient throughout.
The pleadings in this regard are scanty to say the least.
(b) Learned panel counsel for the Insurer is more
than justified in contending that, the wound certificate
MFA No. 101892 of 2016
which is a document generated in due course and at the
earliest point of time could not have been withheld from
production. No plausible explanation is offered by the
claimant for not producing the same, although he
specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he had
one. In the absence of such a certificate, the oral evidence
after claimant cannot be taken with absolute face value.
Be that as it may.
(c) The MACT has awarded a compensation of
Rs.61,000/- after considering the claim under various
heads. Even if the claimant was admitted to hospital as an
inpatient for less than a month, the award of
compensation appears to be inadequate, regard being had
to the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by him.
Court has to take judicial notice of certain things. Nobody
continues hospitalization unless the same is absolutely
warranted. There is pain and suffering during
hospitalization. It is not that soon after the discharge from
hospital, the patient would be able to resume the work.
MFA No. 101892 of 2016
Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of a considered opinion that the
compensation needs to be enhanced to Rs.86,000/- to
make it just and reasonable, on the basis of the case
made out before us.
(d) The learned counsel for the claimant is not
justified in seeking any further enhancement under any of
the heads more particularly when the MACT has prescribed
the rate of interest at 9% per annum, when normally it is
6%. No special reasons are assigned for awarding a higher
rate of interest. That being the position the enhancement
of compensation as mentioned above would certainly do
justice to the claimant and that no prejudice would be
caused to the Insurer.
In the above circumstances, this appeal succeeds in
part. The impugned Judgment and award are modified
enhancing the compensation from Rs.61,000/- to
Rs.85,000/-, all other terms and conditions thereof having
been left intact. The Insurer shall make good the
MFA No. 101892 of 2016
differential within six weeks, failing which the interest rate
would be 12% from the beginning instead of 9%.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vb/rh
