Karnataka High Court
New India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Rajendraramappa Wathare on 14 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3663
MFA No. 25431 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.25431 OF 2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
468/1, OPP, POPATBHAI PETROL PUMB,
SHANIWAR PETH P.B.NO.7, KARAD-415110,
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
REP. BY ITS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
SRINATH,COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBLI. BY ITS.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. RAJENDRA RAMAPPA WATHARE,
AGED: 23 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: CHINCHANI, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
Digitally
signed by
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB ...RESPONDENT
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.22
(SOLE RESPONDENT SERVED)
16:47:34
+0530
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:30-08-2012 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1242/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT-I, CHIKODI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.4,53,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3663
MFA No. 25431 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.S.S.Koliwad, counsel for appellant.
2. Insurance company is in appeal challenging the validity of
the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1242/2010 dated
30.08.2012 on the file of Addl. MACT., Chikodi.
3. Facts in brief for disposal of the appeal are as under;
3.1. Claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of MV
Act for the accidental injuries suffered by the claimant on
15.03.2009 at about 6 a.m. involving a car bearing No.MH-
07/H-1728.
3.2 Claim petition on contest came to be allowed in a sum of
Rs.4,53,800-00.
4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
insurance company is in appeal.
5. Sri.S.S.Koliwad vehemently contended that PW.2 is not
treated doctor who has assessed the disability at 33% in
Ex.P.14. Whereas, tribunal has taken into consideration 25%.
When PW.2 is not a treated doctor this court would assess the
disability factor usually at 1/3 of the disability factor mentioned
in the disability certificate.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3663
6. He also contended that on the other heads tribunal has
granted exorbitant compensation and sought for allowing the
appeal.
7. There is no representation on behalf of he respondent
though served with notice.
8. In view of the arguments put forth on behalf of appellant,
this court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal, claimant having sustained injuries in the
road traffic accident as aforesaid stands established by placing
necessary evidence on record. Disability certificate is marked at
Ex.P.14 it shows that there is a disability of 33%.
10. Tribunal in such circumstances ought o have taken 1/3 of
the disability having regard to the fact that PW.2 is not a
treated doctor.
11. So also on the head of pain and suffering, there is there
is award of compensation in a sum of Rs.75,000/- when there
is only one fracture. There is scope for reduction of
compensation.
12. However, looking into the other heads of the
compensation awarded is on the lower side.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3663
13. Therefore, instead of enhancing compensation on other
heads and reducing the compensation on the head of loss of
income due to disability and pain and suffering, if Rs.1,00,000/-
is deducted from the quantum of compensation, ends of justice
would be met. More so, having regard to the fact that the date
of accident being in the year 2009.
14. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed in part.
ii) As against sum of Rs. 4,53,800/- claimant is
entitled for a sum of Rs.3,53,800/- with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of petition till
realization.
iii) Office is directed to pass a modified award.
iv) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted
to the tribunal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
