Karnataka High Court
Sudhir Shamba Talekar vs Rajesh P. Netrakar on 19 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4014
MFA No. 24064 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24064 OF 2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SUDHIR SHAMBA TALEKAR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC DRIVER, NOW-NIL,
R/O: TOLNAKA, AMADALLI, KARWAR,
SINCE PETITIONER HAS BEEN
PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY UNABLE,
REP. BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, WIFE,
SMT. SUSMITHA SUDHIR TALEKAR,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: TOLNAKA, AMADALLI, KARWAR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAJESH P. NETRAKAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE CAR
BEARING NO. KA-31/3409,
R/O: BAPUJI NAGAR, SIRSI.
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.23 DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RADHA GOVIND COMPLEX,
16:33:12 +0530
KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR, REP. BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE R1)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:22.03.2011 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.81/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER 2ND ADDL. MACT,
KARWAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PEITTION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4014
MFA No. 24064 of 2011
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Prashant Hosamani, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
2. Injured claimant is the appellant challenging the
validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC No.81/2007
dated 22.03.2011 on the file of II Additional Motor Vehicle
Claims Tribunal, Karwar on the ground of inadequacy of the
compensation awarded.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Claimant has suffered accidental injury involving a
motorcycle bearing No.KA-30/K-7721 and car bearing No.KA-
31/3049 on NH-17 at about 07.15 p.m. on 03.06.2006.
4. He was shifted to the hospital and he was treated.
According to the disability certificate, claimant has suffered
100% disability as per Ex.P.7. It is the case of the claimant
that he has been practically left dead wood and therefore,
sought for suitable compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4014
5. Claim petition on contest, came to be allowed, in a
sum of Rs.7,11,000/- as under:
A. Towards pain and agony Rs.25,000/-
B. Towards medical expenses Rs.75,000/-
including attendant charges and
food and nourishment
C. Towards loss of income Rs.5,76,000/-
(3,000 x 12 x 16)
D. Towards loss of future Rs.25,000/-
unhappiness
E. Towards conveyance Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.7,11,000/-
6. Tribunal attributed 40% contributory negligence to
the claimant, though the charge sheet came to be filed against
the driver of the car.
7. Sri.Prashant Hosamani, learned counsel for the
appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum vehemently contended that the Tribunal has
grossly erred in not properly appreciating the material evidence
and has allowed a meager compensation and sought for
enhanced compensation.
8. He also contended that attributing 40% of the
contributory negligence to the injured himself is incorrect as
the charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the car
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4014
and therefore, sought for setting aside the contributory
negligence factor attributed to the appellant and sought for
allowing the appeal in toto.
9. Per contra, Sri.Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned
counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company of the car,
supported the impugned judgment and contended that
taking into consideration of the material evidence placed
on record, Tribunal was justified in attributing 40%
contributory negligence to the rider of the motorcycle and
on the quantum of compensation also, Tribunal has rightly
assessed the compensation and sought for dismissal of the
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, it
has been established by the claimant that he suffered
accidental injuries mentioned in the wound certificate
marked and disability certificate marked at Ex.P.7 and
Ex.P.11.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4014
12. Doctor Xaviar Jourge and Doctor Avinash
Tinekar are the doctors, who were examined on behalf of
the claimant to establish the nature of disability suffered
by the claimant. Admittedly, charge sheet is filed against
the driver of the car.
13. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and
the disability that has been occurred to the claimant, this
Court is of the considered opinion that enhancing the
compensation to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as against
Rs.7,11,000/- would meet the ends of justice. So also
attributing 10% contributory negligence though the charge
sheet is filed against the driver of the car, taking note of
place of accident, would meet the ends of justice.
14. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part as against sum of
Rs.7,11,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, claimant
is entitled to Rs.10,00,000/- on which 10%
contributing negligence is attributed to the
claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4014
ii. Accordingly, claimant is entitled to receive
Rs.9,00,000/- from the Insurance Company of the
car.
iii. Insurance Company is granted four weeks' time to
deposit the balance.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
