Karnataka High Court
A Manjunatha S/O Kotrappa vs Sridharswamy S/O Thippesh B on 27 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
MFA No. 100068 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 102101 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100068 OF 2015 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102101 OF 2014 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.100068/2015
BETWEEN:
SHRI. A. MANJUNATHA S/O. KOTRAPPA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GAJAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ: KUDLIGI,
NOW RESIDING AT KUDITHINI,
TQ: DIST: BELLARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
1. SRI. SRIDHARSWAMY S/O. THIPPESH B,
ROHAN HADIMANI T
HADIMANI Date: AGE: 38 EYARS,
T 2024.02.29
10:36:54
+0530
OCC: RIDER OF MOTOR CYCLE,
R/O. KANIVIHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST: DAVANAGERE.
2. SRI. THIPPESWAMY A. S/O. CHANNABASAPPA,
AGE: 41 EYARS,
OCC: OWNER OF THE MOTOR CYCLE,
R/O. SAKALAPURADA HATTI VILLAGE,
HULIKERE POST, TQ: KUDLIGI,
DIST: BELLARY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
MFA No. 100068 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 102101 of 2014
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
PARVATHI NAGAR, MAIN ROAD, BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.3
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1)
OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 29.03.2014, IN MVC.NO.998/2013
PASSED BY THE LEARNED III MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL,
AT BELLARY, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE ONLY IN SO FAR IT
PERTAINS TO THE REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLNT AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR WITH COST IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN MFA NO.102101/2014
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
PARVATHI NAGAR,
MAIN ROAD BELLARY,
REPRESENTED THROUTH ITS
REGIONAL OFFICE,
ARIHANTA COMPLEX,
KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI. A. MANJUNATH S/O. KOTRAPPA,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
MFA No. 100068 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 102101 of 2014
R/O. GAJAPURA VILLAGE,
TQ: KUDLIGI,
NOW RESIDING AT
KUDITHINI VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST: BELLARY.
2. SRI. SHRIDHAR SWAMY
S/O. THIPPESH B.
AGE: 38 YEARS,
R/O. KANAVIHALLI VILLAGE,
TQ: HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST: DAVANAGERE.
3. SRI. THIPPESWAMY A.
S/O. CHANNABASAPPA,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
R/O. SAKALAPURADA HATTI VILLAGE,
POST: HULIKERI,
TQ: KUDLIGI, DIST: BELLARY,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R1;
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS
CONNECTED WITH MVC 998/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNA BELLARY EXAMINE THE SAME AND SET
ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 29-03-2014 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
MFA No. 100068 of 2015
C/W MFA No. 102101 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up
for final disposal.
2. MFA No.100068/2015 is filed by the
appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation,
whereas MFA No.102101/2014 is filed by the
appellant/Insurance Company challenging the liability as well
as quantum of compensation, awarded under judgment and
award dated 29.03.2014 passed in MVC No.998/2013 by the
III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bellari (for short,
'Tribunal').
3. The parties are referred to as per the ranking
before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
4. Brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are
that on 10.07.2013, the appellant along with one Manjunath
was proceeding by walk along with his motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA.35/S-418 on the left side of the road,
when they reached near Kurihatti cross of C.J. Hali,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
Gundumunugu village, respondent No.1 riding motor cycle
bearing registration No.KA.35/W.8231 came from the
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the claimant. Due to which, the claimant sustained
grievous injuries and took treatment at Government
Hospital, C.J. Halli. Hence, he filed claim petition seeking
compensation.
5. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed objections to
the claim petition. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company
denied the averments made in the claim petition. It has
admitted issuance of policy in respect of the offending
vehicle as on the date of the accident. The said claim is
subject to terms and conditions of the policy.
6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two
witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and got marked EXs-P1 to P13.
The respondents examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2
and got marked documents as EXs-R1 and C1.
7. The Tribunal considering the evidence available
on record awarded total compensation of Rs.2,16,200/-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till deposit. Being aggrieved by the same, the
present appeals are filed.
8. Sri. Nagangouda R. Kuppelur learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company in support of his
appeal would submit that the Tribunal has committed grave
error in fastening the entire liability on the Insurance
Company without giving due weightage to the evidence of
RW-1 and the other medical records. The records indicate
that the claimant was riding motor cycle and there was
head-on collision between the two vehicles, hence the
claimant contributed to the accident in question. It is
submitted that the history of accident noted in the medical
records, which clarifies that the claimant was riding the
vehicle, hence, there is no doubt with regard to the entry
made in the medical record as said records are at the earliest
point of time. It is also submitted that two days after the
date of accident, the complaint is filed against the offending
vehicle, which cannot be looked into. Hence, he seeks to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
modify the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal by
holding the claimant equally liable for the accident.
9. Per contra, Sri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant
supporting the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal and submits that the investigating officer after
detailed investigation had filed charge sheet against the rider
of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA.35/W.8231.
The question of relying on the other documents would not
arise in these appeals. He submits that the claimant was
walking along with his motor bike on the left side of the
road, at that time, the offending motor bike came from
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the claimant, resulting into accident. It is also
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in
assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per
month as the claimant was doing agricultural work and
earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also
contended that the doctor has assessed disability at 30%
and without considering the evidence of doctor and the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
tribunal assessed the disability at 12% to the whole body,
which requires interference. Thus, he seeks to allow the
appeal by dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company.
10. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel
for the appellant/Insurance Company and perused the
material available on record. The following points would arise
for consideration:
a) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the
entire liability on the appellant/Insurance
Company?
b) Whether the appellant/claimant would be entitled
for enhanced compensation?
12. Answer to the above points would be in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
13. It is not in dispute that the accident in question
has taken place on 10.07.2013, when the appellant/claimant
was walking on the left side of the road along with his motor
cycle bearing registration No.KA.35/S-418, at that time, the
offending vehicle bearing Registration No.KA.35/W.8231
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
appellant/claimant, resulted into injuries. The
appellant/claimant has entered the witness box in support of
his claim and deposed the contents of the claim petition. The
material evidence available on record indicates that the
investigating officer after completion of investigation has
filed charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle
bearing Registration No.KA.35/W.8231. The contention of
the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is
that, at the earliest point of time, the medical records would
indicate that the appellant/claimant was riding the motor
cycle. This Court is of the considered view, that the
intimation given to the hospital by somebody which is noted
as history cannot be the basis to come to a conclusion that
the appellant was riding the motor cycle. The police after
investigation has filed charge sheet against the rider of the
offending motor cycle, hence, question of giving any due
weightage to the medical records would not arise. Hence,
this Court does not find any error in the reasoning of the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
Tribunal with regard to the fastening of the entire liability on
the appellant/Insurance Company.
7. Insofar as quantum of compensation, the learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the Tribunal
has committed grave error in assessing the income of the
appellant/claimant at Rs.4,500/- as he was agriculturist
earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. It is not in
dispute that the appellant has not produced any evidence to
substantiate his claim for income. In view of the same, this
Court taking note of the notional income chart prepared by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, would assess
the income of the appellant/claimant at Rs.7,000/- per
month. Insofar as the disability is concerned the Tribunal
taking note of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with EX.P8-
Disability Certificate has come to the conclusion that the
appellant/claimant has suffered physical disability to an
extent of 10%, which in my considered view is just and
proper and same does not call for any interference. The
Tribunal has committed error in not awarding any
compensation under the head of attendance charges, food
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
and nourishment. Hence, it would be just and proper to
award Rs.15,000/- under the aforesaid head. In view of
reassessment of the appellant/claimant, the
appellant/claimant would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.21,000/- under the head of loss of income during the
treatment period as against Rs.9,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to
compensation on the head of loss of future earning capacity
as under:
Rs.7,000 X 12 X 18 X 10% = Rs.1,51,200/-
Sl. Particulars Amount
No
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 35,000/-
2. Loss of amenities and happiness Rs. 30,000/-
3. Medical and incidental charges Rs. 45,000/-
4. Loss of earnings during treatment period Rs. 21,000/-
5. Loss of future earnings due to disability Rs.1,51,200/-
6. Food and nourishment and attendance Rs. 15,000/-
charges
Total Rs.2,97,200/-
8. Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.2,97,200/- as against Rs.2,16,200/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4571
9. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated 29.03.2014
passed in MVC No.998/2013 by the tribunal, is
modified to an extent that the appellant would
be entitled to total compensation of
Rs.2,97,200/- as against Rs.2,16,200/-
awarded by the tribunal.
iii) The enhanced compensation amount shall carry
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till date of payment.
iv) The insurance company shall deposit the
enhanced compensation along with interest
before the Tribunal within six weeks from today.
v) On such deposit, the same shall be released in
favour of the appellant/claimant.
vi) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
