Karnataka High Court
The Regional Manager vs Bailappa And Anr on 1 August, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5531
MFA No. 201899 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201899 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE REGIONAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
3RD LOOR ASIAN PLAZA, TIMMAPURI CIRCLE,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, DVOCATE)
AND:
1. BAILAPPA S/O HANAMANTH DODAMANI
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O.KACHAKANNUR, TQ: SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIR-585202.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 2. CHANNAPPAGOUDA S/O AMLLANAGOUDA
Location: HIGH AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
COURT OF R/O. KACHAKANNUR, TQ: SHORAPUR,
KARNATAKA
DIST: YADGIR-585202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI G.G. CHGSHETTY ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.07.2017
PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT,
SHORAPUR, IN MVC No.185/2014 AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5531
MFA No. 201899 of 2017
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
1. The insurer is in appeal challenging the award of
compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- of the injuries suffered by
the claimant. The occurrence of the accident and the
liability of the insurer to satisfy the compensation is not in
serious dispute.
2. An argument is however advanced that there was no
endorsement of the driving license, but in the light of the
judgment rendered in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in
(2017) 14 SCC 663, this argument would not survive.
3. Learned counsel for the insurer contended that the
income taken at Rs.6,000/- per month was on the higher
side and the assessment of disability at 22.5% was also on
the higher side.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5531
4. It is noticed that the doctor who was examined
assessed the disability at 25% and this was reduced to
22.5%. Since the disability has been assessed lower than
what was assessed by the doctor, the income assessed by
the Tribunal, even is in excess would not make any
material difference since the amount of compensation
would virtually be the same if the disability is increased.
5. Having regard to the fact that the accident is of the
year 2009, in my view, it would be not an appropriate case
to interfere with the award, at this point of time. The
appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
MSR
CT: VD
