Karnataka High Court
Smt. Seeta Topya Chandgulikar vs Hemanth Raju Netrekar on 16 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3835
MFA No. 102712 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102712 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SEETA TOPYA CHANDGULIKAR,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: YALLAPUR, HAALI:KASGERI,
MANKI, HONNAVAR TALUK,
DIST: KARWAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HEMANTH RAJU NETREKAR,
R/O: SHARADA GALLI,
TQ: YALLAPUR, DIST:UTTAR KANNADA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COURT ROAD,
Digitally signed
UDUPI.
by SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB
DESHNUR ...RESPONDENTS
Date:
DESHNUR 2024.02.23 (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
17:01:06
+0530 R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:01.09.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.55/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HONNAVAR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3835
MFA No. 102712 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for orders, by consent of
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Shri. T. M. Nadaf, learned counsel for the
appellant and Shri. G. N. Raichur, learned counsel for
respondent No.2- Insurance Company.
3. Injured claimant is in appeal challenging the validity
of judgment and award passed in MVC No.55/2014 dated
01.09.2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Honavar, insofar as inadequacy of the
compensation.
4. Admitted facts are that the claimant sustained
accidental injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on
06.11.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., near Bell Road, opposite Sub
Treasury in Yallapur involving motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-31/U-5596.
5. Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary
written statement.
6. Tribunal on contest allowed the claim petition in a
sum of Rs.1,35,200/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3835
7. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, claimant is in appeal.
8. Shri. T. M. Nadaf, learned counsel for the appellant
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum
contended that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the
disability factor whereas the doctor has assessed disability
factor to the extent of 22%. The Tribunal has taken only 4%
as disability factor in the absence of treated doctor being
examined. 1/3rd of disability factor mentioned in disability
certificate should have been taken and income should have
been taken at Rs.7,000/- per month for the accidental injuries
of the year 2013 and sought for allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, Shri. G. N. Raichur, learned counsel for
Insurance Company contended that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and
sought for dismissal of appeal.
10. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, taking
note of the fact that there is a fracture in the in right leg and
also abrasion over right elbow, if a sum of Rs.15,000/- is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3835
enhanced as a global compensation ends of justice would be
met.
12. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) As against the sum of Rs.1,35,200/-
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant
is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,200/-
as compensation with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum from the date
of petition till realization.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
