Karnataka High Court
Fakirappa S/O Mahadevappa Hanchinal vs Maruti Huligeppa Surkod on 21 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4287
MFA No. 103268 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103268 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
FAKIRAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA HANCHINAL,
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: KHAGADAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MARUTI HULIGEPPA SURKOD,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and BUSINESS,
R/O: KHAGADAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI,
(OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING
REG.NO.KA-24/H-9266)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
Digitally signed NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
by SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB FIRST FLOOR, APMC YARD P.B NO.24,
AYUB DESHNUR
SAUNDATTI THROUGH
DESHNUR Date:
2024.02.23
16:35:22 +0530 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RAMDEV GALLI, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S.ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:10.10.2014, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.1630/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
SAUNDATTI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4287
MFA No. 103268 of 2014
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, it is taken
up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.
2. Heard learned counsel representing Smt.Shaila
Bellikatti, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri.Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
3. Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the
validity of the judgment and award passed in MVC
No.1630/2013 dated 10.10.2014 on the file of Senior Civil
Judge and Additional MACT, Saundatti insofar as
inadequacy of quantum of compensation is concerned.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Claimant met with a road traffic accident on
09.01.2013 at about 6.30 p.m. involving a motorcycle
bearing No.KA.24/H.9266. He was shifted to the hospital
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4287
and got cured with the injuries and suffered permanent
disability.
5. Tribunal, on contest, allowed the claim petition
in a sum of Rs.2,67,260/- as under:
PARTICULARS AMOUNT
1 Towards pain and sufferings Rs.42,000/-
2 Towards medical bill Rs.1,08,500/-
3 Towards attendant charges Rs.6,000/-
4 Towards food and nutrition Rs.4,500/-
5 Towards transportation Rs.15,000/-
6 Towards loss of income Rs.13,500/-
during laid off period
7 Towards loss of future Rs.77,760/-
earning capacity due to
disability
TOTAL Rs.2,67,260/-
6. Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, claimant is in appeal.
7. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum vehemently contended that Tribunal has not
properly taken into consideration the monthly income and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4287
in the absence of proper proof of income, at least sum of
Rs.7,000/- should have been taken as the monthly income
and disability factor assessed at 8% as against 45% put
together to both the limbs is on the lower side and sought
for suitable enhancement.
8. She also contended that on the head of
attendant charges, food and nutrition, are all on the lower
side and sought for enhanced compensation.
9. Sri.Rajashekhar S. Arani, learned counsel for
respondent No.2/Insurance Company supported the
impugned judgment.
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 is
crystal clear that claimant has sustained injuries in a road
traffic accident as aforesaid. Tribunal took into
consideration monthly income on the lower side and on
the head of attendant charges, food and nutrition, amount
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4287
awarded is incorrect. So also there is no amount awarded
on the head of loss of amenities.
12. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this
Court is of the considered opinion that if a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- is enhanced over and above Rs.2,67,260/-,
ends of justice would be met, instead of enhancing the
compensation on each and every head.
13. Accordingly, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part as against sum
of Rs.2,67,260/- claimant is entitled to
Rs.3,67,260/- with interest at 6% p.a. from
the date of petition till its realization.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KAV
