Karnataka High Court
Pushpavati W/O Prabhanna Kalmani vs Arun @ Rohit Prabhanna Kalamani on 19 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4012
MFA No. 101255 of 2016
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.101255 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PUSHPAVATI
W/O. PRABHANNA KALMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: GADAG-582101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ARUN @ ROHIT PRABHANNA KALAMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 2ND CROSS, VIVEKANAND NAGAR,
GADAG-582101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
REGLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DESHPANDE NAGAR,
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
HUBBALLI-580031.
SAMREEN AYUB
DESHNUR
AYUB Date: ...RESPONDENTS
DESHNUR 2024.02.23
16:57:31 (BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
+0530
R1 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:23.12.2015, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.85/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4012
MFA No. 101255 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Harish S.Maigur and Sri.G.N.Raichur,
learned counsel for the parties.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is
taken up for final disposal.
3. Injured claimant is in appeal on the ground of
inadequacy of the quantum of compensation in respect of
a claim in MVC No.85/2012 on the file of Addl.District and
Sessions Judge, Gadag dated 23.12.2015.
4. Admitted facts are that the claimants sustained
accidental injuries on 08.02.2012 at about 2 p.m.
involving car bearing No.KA-35/TRN-7276.
5. Claim petition on contest came to be allowed in a
sum of Rs.99,200/-. Being aggrieved by the same,
claimant is in appeal.
6. Sri.Harish S. Maigur reiterating the grounds urged in
the appeal memorandum sought for enhancement of
compensation on the ground that the monthly income has
not been properly computed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4012
7. He further contended that for the accidental injuries
of the year 2012 in the absence of proper proof of income,
monthly income is to be taken at Rs.6,500/-. Doctor has
assessed 40% disability since, he has not a treated doctor,
atleast 1/3 of the 40% is to be taken as disability factor
and sought for enhanced compensation.
8. He also contented that on the other head also
tribunal has not properly granted the compensation.
9. Per contra, Sri.G.N.Raichur supported the impugned
judgment.
10. Having heard the parties, this court has perused the
material on record meticulously.
11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in
dispute that the claimant sustained accidental injuries on
08.02.2012 at about 32 p.m. involving car bearing No.KA-
35/TRN-7276.
12. The quantum of compensation awarded in a sum of
Rs.99,2000/- is on the lower side having regard to the fact
that the monthly income is not properly taken into
consideration and so also disability factor.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4012
13. Therefore, a case for enhanced compensation is
made out by appellant.
14. Instead of enhancing compensation on each and
every head, if Rs.90,000/- is enhanced taking note of the
monthly income at the rate of Rs.6,500/- p.m. and
considering the disability facts at 13% and also on the
ground of loss of income during the laid up period, ends of
justice would be met.
15. Accordingly, the following :
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) As against sum of Rs.99,200/- granted by the
tribunal, claimant is entitled for sum of
Rs.1,89,200 with interest at 6% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization.
iii) Insurance company is granted with four weeks
time to deposit the balance amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
