Karnataka High Court
Yallappa Kallappa Maryakache vs Prakash Rampal Jangid on 9 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3142
MFA No. 101859 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101859 OF 2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. YALLAPPA KALLAPPA MARYAKACHE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: CYCLE REPAIRER, NOW NIL,
R/O: HALAGA, TQ: DIST: BELAGAVI-590018.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. PRAKASH RAMPAL JANGID,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: PLOT NO.18, H.102,
SRI. SIDDIVINAYAK BLDG.,
SAMBHAJI NAGAR, VADAGAON,
BELAGAVI-590008.
2. THE MANAGER,
IFFCO-TOKIO GEN. INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BHARATHI CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER,
HM
KSCMF BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD BLOCK,
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M NO.8, CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
Date: 2024.02.21
12:00:38 +0530 BENGALURU-560052.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:24.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.25/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
AND MACT-III, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3142
MFA No. 101859 of 2016
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for orders, by consent of
parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Shri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for
the appellant and Shri. R. R. Mane, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
3. Claimant is in appeal challenging the validity of
judgment and award passed in MVC No.25/2011 dated
24.02.2016 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Belagavi.
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the appeal are as under:
4.1. Claimant being injured in a road traffic accident
occurred on 01.06.2010 at about 8.15 p.m., laid a claim under
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V.
Act').
4.2. Accident said to have occurred when the claimant
was moving on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3142
22/EC-1300 encountered in a road traffic accident by an
unknown vehicle.
5. Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary
written statement.
6. Tribunal after raising necessary issues considered
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and heard
the parties in detail and allowed the claim petition in a sum of
Rs.96,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.05,000/-
2 Towards incidental charges Rs.10,000/-
3 Towards conveyance & special diet Rs.10,000/-
4 Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
5 Loss of future earnings Rs.51,480/-
6 Towards future medical bills as per Rs.10,000/-
Ex.P.8
Total Rs.96,480/-
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant is in
appeal.
8. Shri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum sought for enhanced compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3142
9. Per contra, Shri. R. R. Mane, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned
judgment.
10. He further contended that the award amount of
Rs.96,500/- is itself is on the higher side as the claim is under
Section 163A of the M.V. Act and therefore, the different heads
on which the compensation awarded by the Tribunal could not
have been granted and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen
that the Tribunal has granted the compensation as aforesaid. If
the claim petition is under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, the
Tribunal ought not to have granted the compensation as
aforesaid. It should have been strictly in accordance with II
Schedule of the M.V.Act. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in
granting a sum of Rs 96,500/- as compensation on different
heads as above.
13. Instead of reducing the compensation, in the
absence of appeal by the Insurance Company, if the quantum
of compensation is maintained ends of justice would be met.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3142
14. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
