Karnataka High Court
Paramma W/O Timmappa vs M/S National Insu Co Ltd on 20 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3847 OF 2014 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2664 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.3847/2014
BETWEEN:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
BM COMPLEX LAKSHMI BAZAAR
CHITRADURGA
REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE, SUBHARAM COMPLEX
144, MG ROAD, BANGALORE-001
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE AND
signed by SRI A N KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE)
BHARATHI S
Location:
HIGH COURT AND:
OF
KARNATAKA 1. SMT PARAMMA
W/O THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
R/AT BEESANAHALLI VILLAGE
HOSADURGA-577527
2. NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O N SIDDAPPA
R/O DASAHALLI VILLAGE
ADNOOR POST
HOLALKERE TALUK
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577526
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. PREMASHREE A, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.3.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.313/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL. MACT AT HOSADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.1,01,773/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST @ 6%P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN MFA NO.2664/2015
BETWEEN:
1. PARAMMA W/O TIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O BEESANHALLI VILLAGE
HOSADURGA TQ
CHITRAUDRGA DIST 577 527
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. PREMASHREE A, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S NATIONAL INSU CO LTD
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
B M COMPLEX, LAKSHMI BAZAR
CHITRADURGA 577 501
2. NARASIMHMURTHY S/O N SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE
NO.KA-16-L-2465
R/O DASAHALLI VILLAGE
ADNOOR POST, HOLALKERE TQ
CHITRADURGA DIST 577 526
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE AND
SRI A N KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 7.3.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.313/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
ADDITIONAL MACT, HOSADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. MFA No.3847/2014 is filed by the insurer and MFA
No.2664/2015 is filed by the claimant. In both the appeals the
judgment and award dated 7.3.2014 passed in MVC
No.313/2012 by the Itinerary Senior Civil Judge and Addl.
MACT., at Hosadurga are under challenge. Hence, both the
appeals are taken up together for consideration.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 26.5.2012 when she
was walking on the road, a motorcycle being driven in a rash
and negligent manner, hit the claimant, wherein she sustained
grievous injuries. Claiming compensation for the same, the
claim petition was filed arraying the owner and insurer of the
offending motorcycle as Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
Respondents entered appearance before the Tribunal and
contested the case of the claimant. The claimant examined
herself as PW.1.
4. The complainant who lodged the complaint was examined
as PW.2 and another witness as PW.3. Ex.P1 to P38 were
marked in evidence. The insurer examined the Doctor as RW.1
and its official as RW.2. Exs.R1 to R2 were marked in
evidence. The Tribunal by judgment dated 07.03.2014 has
awarded compensation of `1,01,773/- together with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit.
Being aggrieved, the present appeals are filed.
5. Learned counsel for the insurer assailing the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal contends that the vehicle has
been implicated in the accident inasmuch as in the MLC extract
(Ex.R1), the vehicle number was initially written and thereafter
it has been struck off and that another vehicle number has
been specifically written. It is further contended that when the
complaint was lodged, the vehicle number has not been
mentioned. That subsequently, the vehicle number has been
incorporated. Further, adverting to the evidence of PW.3 it is
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
submitted that it is the testimony of PW.3 that he stopped the
vehicle which caused the accident and in view of the same,
there was no impediment for the vehicle number to be
mentioned at the time of lodging the complaint. Hence, he
seeks for allowing of the appeal filed by the insurer and setting
aside the award by the Tribunal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant noticing the
sequence of events in which the accident and subsequent
events occurred submits that the complainant having been
examined as PW.2 and another witness as PW.3, there is no
contradiction in the case of the claimant and that judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the
insurer is just and proper. She further submits that the
quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side and
hence, seeks for enhancement.
7. The submissions of both the learned counsel have been
considered and the materials on record including the records of
the Tribunal have been perused. The questions that arise for
consideration are:
i) Whether the finding recorded by the
Tribunal on issue No.1 as to whether the
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
claimant has proved that she sustained
injuries in the accident in question due to
negligence of the offending vehicle are just
and proper?
ii) Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is required to be
enhanced?
Re: question No.(i):
8. The accident occurred on 26.05.2012. The complaint was
lodged on 27.05.2012. The complainant - PW.2 has stated that
although the number of the vehicle which caused the accident
has not been mentioned in the complaint, since the claimant
had to be taken for further treatment, in the said confusion,
erroneously, the number of the vehicle has not been mentioned.
PW.2 has stated in the cross examination that he had not seen
the motorcycle number at the time when the accident occurred
and he was informed of the same by two persons i.e., Prahlad
and Devendrappa. The said Prahlad has been examined as PW.3.
He has stated regarding the manner of occurrence of the
accident and after the accident along with few other persons he
stopped the vehicle. That the vehicle number was informed to
PW.2.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
9. The insurer has examined the Doctor as RW.1 and has
marked the MLC extract as Ex.R1. It is forthcoming from said
MLC extract that the vehicle number has written and
subsequently a portion of the same is struck off and then the
offending vehicle number is written. In the cross examination
of RW.1, admits that the vehicle number has been scratched
and struck off. However, RW.1 denies that the vehicle number
was subsequently inserted as per the convenience of the
claimant though the said vehicle was not involved in the
accident. It is further stated by RW.1 that the claimant was not
in a position to give the number of the vehicle and another
person viz., Kumar who brought the claimant has stated
regarding the vehicle number. It is forthcoming from the
aforementioned that RW.1 being an independent witness has
clearly stated regarding the circumstances under which the
correction in Exs.R1 is made.
10. Further, it is noticed that the complainant having
examined as PW.2 and another witness as PW.3 and the vehicle
number having been given in the further submission, the
contention of the insurer that the case of the claimant is not a
probable one, is not a liable to be accepted.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
11. It is further contended that in the motorcycle accident's
report, no damages are forthcoming from the insured vehicle.
However, having regard to the fact that it was never alleged by
the claimant that the offending vehicle fell down after hitting the
Petitioner and having regarding to the fact that no other vehicle
is involved in the accident, the mere fact that no damages were
reported in Ex.P8 will not be a ground to deny the claim for
compensation. The Tribunal has noticed that the Respondents
have not produced any evidence contrary to the case putforth
by the claimant and that nothing is elicited in the cross
examination of PW.1.
12. Having regard to the aforementioned, it is clear that the
claimant has adduced adequate oral and documentary evidence
to demonstrate the occurrence of the accident as averred in
the claim petition and the finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is
just and proper and no interference in the same is necessary in
the present appeal. Accordingly, question No.(i) is answered in
the affirmative.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
Re.question No.(ii):
13. It is forthcoming that claimant is aged about 27 years. It
is stated that the claimant was doing household work and
agricultural operations. The Tribunal has assessed the income at
`4,000/-. The income assessed by the Tribunal is however, on
the lower side.
14. The wound certificate (Ex.P3) discloses that the claimant
had sustained fracture of bilateral petrous temporal bone. The
discharge card (Ex.P5) discloses that the claimant was treated
as inpatient from 26.05.2012 to 01.06.2012. However, the
claimant has not examined any doctor. The Tribunal has
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and
has adequately awarded compensation on various heads which is
just and proper. However, having regard to the fact that the
claimant has sustained fracture in the head region and was also
treated as an inpatient, it is just and proper that a further, a
sum of `15,000/- be awarded in addition to the amount awarded
by the Tribunal. Accordingly, question No.(ii) is answered in the
affirmative.
15. Hence, the following
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
MFA No. 3847 of 2014
C/W MFA No. 2664 of 2015
ORDER
(i) MFA No.3847/2014 filed by the insurer is
dismissed.
(ii) MFA No.2664/2015 filed by the claimant
is partly allowed.
(iii) The judgment and award dated 7.3.2014
passed in MVC No.313/2012 by the Itinerary
Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT., at
Hosadurga is modified only to the extent
ordered herein. In all other respects, the
judgment and award of the Tribunal
remains unaltered;
(iv) The appellant in MFA No.3847/2014 -
insurer shall pay the appellant in MFA
No.2664/2015 - claimant an additional
compensation of `15,000/- together with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till its realization, in addition to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal;
(v) The amount deposited by the Appellant
in MFA No.3847/2014 shall be transmitted
to the Tribunal, in terms of the award of the
Tribunal;
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:7224
(vi) The appellant in MFA No.3847/2014 -
insurer shall deposit the balance
compensation together with accrued
interest within eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
(vii) The Registry to draw the modified
award accordingly.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BS
