Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager Oriental ... vs Muralidhar M And Anr on 21 February, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
MFA No. 202149 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202149 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
N.G. COMPLEX, OPP: MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KALABURAGI, (NOW REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, R.O., HUBLI)
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MURALIDHAR M. S/O NARAYAN M.,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: CO-ORDINATOR,
FOR WATER PURIFIERS IN VILLAGE FILED WORK,
NOW, NIL R/O: H.NO.1-4-25, BODA HOME
Digitally signed BACKSIDE KUMBAR AREA, SHAHAPUR,
by SWETA
KULKARNI TQ: SHAHAPUR,
Location: HIGH DIST: YADGIR-585 201
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. GURUSHANT S/O LAXMAN,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.20-885, KUSNOOR,
TQ. AND DIST: KALABURAGI-585 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 21.02.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
TO ALLOW THE ABOVE BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 12.12.2022 IN MVC NO.408/2021
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
MFA No. 202149 of 2023
PASSED BY THE I-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT
KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the Insurer of motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA-39/J-4415 [the offending motorcycle] calling in
question the judgment and award dated 12.12.2022 in MVC
No.408/2021 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge &
MACT, Kalaburagi [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The appellant is
aggrieved by the Tribunal's finding on the involvement of the
offending motorcycle in the road accident in which the first
respondent has suffered injuries and on the quantum of
compensation. The Tribunal has granted a total sum of
Rs.17,01,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum from
the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The details of
the compensation as granted by the Tribunal are as follows:
Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
Attendant Charges, Food and Rs.15,000/-
Conveyance Charges
Loss of future income Rs.10,26,000/-
Medical expenditure Rs.5,80,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
Loss of Income during Rs.30,000/-
treatment
Loss of Amenities, Nutrition Rs.20,000/-
and food
Total Rs.17,01,000/-
2. The first respondent has met with an accident on
11.11.2020 at 7.30 p.m. suffering multiple injuries that has
resulted in his hospitalization over a period of one month
with an intervening break. The information about the
accident is lodged with the jurisdictional police on
19.11.2020 by the first respondent's brother [Sri Rakesh
S/o Narayan] and the FIR in Crime No.104/2020 is
registered on the same day. In this information, the first
respondent's brother has stated that he was informed by the
first respondent over telephone that when he was returning
home from work near Gobbur(B) at Machanal cross, a two-
wheeler dashed against him; that he has suffered injuries,
and that he is taken to a hospital in an Ambulance. The
police, acting upon this information, have seized the
offending motorcycle on 02.12.2020 and have filed charge-
sheet against the accused - Rajappa S/o Sharanappa
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
Doddamani in No.86/2020 on 24.12.2020. In the Motorcycle
Accident Report [Ex.P.6], the concerned Inspector of
Motorcycle has reported that front left side indicator and the
headlight doom cover are damaged. The accident spot, as
seen in Crime Details Form [Ex.P.5], is as narrated by the
first respondent in the petition and in his evidence.
3. The appellant has contested the claim petition
disputing the involvement of the offending motorcycle
contending that the first information is filed eight days after
accident and that the first respondent has not given the
statement about the accident to the police. The first
respondent, to establish his case has examined himself as
P.W.1, and Dr. Vinaysagar Sharma as P.W.2, and he has
also marked the police records. However, the appellant has
not let in any evidence but a copy of the Insurance Policy is
marked in evidence by consent as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal,
while considering the question whether the first respondent
has established that he has suffered injuries because of the
accident on 11.11.2020 at 7.30 p.m. brought about by the
rider of the offending motorcycle, has made a detailed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
reference to the police records opining that the police
records and the evidence of the first respondent remains un-
controverted and involvement of the offending motorcycle
established.
4. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi, the learned counsel
for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal has not
appreciated in the right perspective the delay in lodging the
information on 19.11.2020. The learned counsel
emphasizes that the first respondent's brother in the
information [as per Ex.P.2] has stated that his brother
informed him over telephone about the accident stating that
Sri Choklu Rathod and Sri Dharmaraj called an ambulance
and shifted him to the hospital and that this accident was
brought about by the rider of the offending motorcycle
without offering any explanation for the delay but
acknowledging that the information is being filed after
discussion with his elder brother.
5. The only circumstance which the appellant wants
this Court to consider to draw inference in its favour is the
delay. The merits of this contention must be examined in
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
the light of the material that is brought out by the police
during the course of the investigation and the fact that the
appellant, despite taking a specific defense about the
involvement of the motorcycle, has not examined any
witness. The doctor, who is examined as P.W.2, has detailed
the injuries suffered and the procedure that is undergone by
the first respondent.
6. The first respondent is admitted on 11.11.2020
and is discharged on 27.11.2020 during this period, the first
respondent undergone left fronto-temporo-parietal
descompressive craniectomy, left temporal contusion
evacuation, lax G-patch duraplasty and abdominal bone flap
placement and he is re-admitted again on 16.02.2021 for left
fronto-temporo-parietal craniectomy plasty and discharged
on 21.02.2021. If in these circumstances information is
lodged with the jurisdictional police after eight days of the
accident and after discussing with the injured about the
manner in which the accident has happened, this Court is of
the definite opinion it would not be reasonable to infer that
the offending motorcycle is falsely implicated. The
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
appellant, if it wanted an inference against the involvement
on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, should have
brought on record some circumstances to justify an
inference notwithstanding the material circumstances as
referred to above. This Court must also observe that none of
the police records is contested by the appellant.
7. Smt. Preeti Patil Melkundi submits that the
Tribunal has erred both in determining permanent disability
at 25% and in taking the income of the first respondent at
Rs.22,800/- per month. The learned counsel submits that
the Tribunal could not have accepted the Pay-slips to opine
that the appellant was earning Rs.22,800/- per month when
the author of the document or somebody of organization
concerned is not examined. However, it is seen from the
evidence that appellant is categorical that he was working as
a Co-ordinator with Bala Vikasa Warangal [Telangana] for
Water Purifier, and as part of his work he had to go from
village to village and in fact, his specific case is that when he
was near Gobbur(B) from work, the accident has occurred.
This evidence remains essentially undisturbed.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
8. In the light of this evidence, this Court cannot
take exception with the Tribunal opining that the first
respondent has established his vocation, and as regards the
quantum of salary, it would suffice to observe that even
when there is no proof of income, Rs.13,750/- per month is
taken as the income according to the schedule evolved for
settlement in Lok-Adalath and in case of severe injuries, as
in the case of death, there is addition towards future
prospects and in the present case it is not added. Therefore,
if Rs.22,800/- is taken as the monthly income, this Court
must opine there is no bonanza to the first respondent.
9. The doctor's opinion that the appellant has
suffered 73% neurological disability is contested asserting
that this assessment is essentially because of the fact that
the appellant is put on antiepileptic medication. This
contention also does not merit acceptance in view of the
doctor's categorical evidence that the first respondent has
suffered sensory ataxia and first respondent's antiepileptic
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1677-DB
condition is not a prior condition. In the light of the afore,
the appeal must be dismissed but the appellant must have
reasonable time to deposit compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of
permitting the appellant to deposit compensation in terms of
the Tribunal's judgment and award within a period of eight
[8] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the
Tribunal
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
CT: CS
