Karnataka High Court
Deepak S/O Basavaraj Lade vs Holkunde Mallikarjun And Anr on 2 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2765
MFA No. 201408 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 200131 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201408 OF 2023 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200131 OF 2023
IN MFA 201408 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
DEEPAK S/O BASAVARAJ LADE,
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: AUTO DRIVER (NOW NIL)
R/O. VILLAGE YELLALING COLONY,
NAUBAD, BIDAR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-585 402.
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by
SACHIN (BY SRI B C JAKA, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. HOLKUNDE MALLIKARJUN
S/O GADGEPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: C/O SHAIKH ZEELANI GAFURSAB,
UTGE NAGAR, GALLI NO.3,
DALDA FACTORY,
LATUR,
MAHARASTRA-413 512.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2765
MFA No. 201408 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 200131 of 2023
2. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GULBARGA DIVISION,
BILGUNDI MANSION,
STATION ROAD,
OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNTORY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DEEPAK V BARAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED ALLOW THE APPEAL BY MODIFYING
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.06.2022, IN M.V.C NO.
364/2021, PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC BIDAR AND MACT AT BIDAR AND CONSEQUENTLY BE
PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION OF RS.
10,00,000/-, WITH INTEREST AT 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL ACTUAL REALIZATION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA 200131 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
OPPOSITE MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
STATION ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI DEEPAK V BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEEPAK S/O BASAVARAJ LADE
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
R/O. VILLAGE YELLALING COLONY,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2765
MFA No. 201408 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 200131 of 2023
NAUBAD, BIDAR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR-585 401
2. HOLKUNDE MALLIKARJUN
S/O GADGEPPA,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/AT: C/O SHAIKH ZEELANI GAFURSAB,
UTGE NAGAR, GALLI NO.3,
DALDA FACTORY,
LATUR,
MAHARASTRA-413 512.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C.JAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL
BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
22.06.2022, PASSED BY THE COUERT OF THE ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MACT, BIDAR IN M.V.C NO.
364/2021, AND PLEASED TO BE REDUCE THE COMPENSATION
SUITABLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. B C Jaka, learned counsel for the claimant
as well as Sri. Deepak V Barad, learned counsel for
respondent insurance company. Both appeals arise out of
the order rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Bidar in MVC No.364/2021 dated 22.06.2022.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2765
2. MFA No.200131/2023 is filed by the insurer
with a contention that the amount awarded as
compensation by the Tribunal is on higher side and thus,
the same is required to be reduced. MFA
No.201408/2023 is filed by the claimant projecting that
the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal
does not commensurate the loss sustained and therefore,
the same needs enhancement.
3. The version of the claimant is that while he was
proceeding in an Auto rickshaw on 22.03.2021, a car
bearing Reg.No.MH-24/V-2194, which was driven by its
driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
dashed against the Auto, due to which he sustained
severe injuries. The Tribunal which dealt with the matter,
having considered the entire evidence produced, came to
a conclusion that as the disability is mentioned as 23% in
respect of affected limb, the disability in respect of whole
body has to be considered as 8%. This Court does not
find any reason to interfere with the said finding.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2765
4. Coming to the occupation and earnings of the
claimant, the claimant though projected that he was a
driver by profession by the date of accident, did not even
choose to produce his driving license. The Tribunal
subjecting the evidence of PWs-1 and 2, Exs.P-7 to 18 to
scrutiny, came to a conclusion that the claimant is entitled
to a sum of Rs.2,79,896/- as compensation and that the
said entitlement under different heads would be as under:
SL. HEADS OF Compensation
NO. COMPENSATION awarded
1 Loss of future income Rs.1,68,960/-
2 Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
3 Medical expenses Rs.43,936/-
4 Loss of income during Rs.22,000/-
laid-up period
5. Food and Rs.10,000/-
nourishment,
conveyance &
attendant charges
6. Loss of future amenity Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,79,896/-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2765
5. Having gone through the reasons given for
arriving at the said conclusion by the Tribunal, which
appears just and reasonable and as the claimant failed to
establish before this Court that he indeed is entitled to a
higher sum and equally as the insurer also failed to
establish that the amount awarded by the Tribunal
through the impugned order is unreasonable, this Court is
of the considered view that both appeals lack merits.
Resultantly, the following order:
ORDER
a) Both appeals stand dismissed without
costs.
b) Amount in deposit, if any, be
transmitted to the concerned
Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NJ
