Karnataka High Court
Sri.Keshappa Krishnappa Kondikoppa vs Ravichandra S/O Devappa Thalavar on 16 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1154
MFA No. 100199 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100199 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KESHAPPA KRISHNAPPA KONDIKOPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE,
R/O: GADAG, PIN CODE: 582101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVICHANDRA S/O. DEVAPPA THALAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: A/P NO.161, DONI,
TQ: MUNDARGI, DIST: GADAG,
PIN CODE: 582101.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH MUMBAI,
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN PIN CODE: 400070.
AYUB
DESHNUR ...RESPONDENTS
Date: 2024.02.01
15:38:35 +0530 (BY SMT. ANUSH SANGAMI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.07.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.360/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, GADAG AND ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, GADAG, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1154
MFA No. 100199 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of both parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri.Ashok Angadi, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt.Anusha Sangami, learned counsel for
respondent - Insurance Company.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of this case are as under:
The claimant/injured in a road traffic accident
occurred on 10.07.2013 at 1.30 p.m. involving a maxi cab
TATA bearing No.KA-14/5081 filed a claim petition in MVC
No.360/2013, which on contest, came to be allowed by
judgment and award dated 15.07.2016 awarding
compensation in a sum of Rs.86,922/- as under:
4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the injured has preferred the present
appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1154
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Sri.Ashok Angadi, learned counsel for the
appellant - claimant, contended that the Tribunal has
erred in not awarding any amount towards future medical
expenses, loss of future income due to disability and loss
of earning during laid up period and sought for allowing
the appeal. Liability is fastened on the owner of the
vehicle in the absence of vehicle was not registered and it
did not have any insurance policy.
6. Notice of the appeal is served on the owner and
he remained absent.
7. In the light of the contentions put forth on
behalf of appellant, this Court perused the material on
record meticulously.
8. Admittedly, injured is a police constable who is
continued in service. The material evidence on record
would go to show that he did not suffer any permanent
disability in the absence of any disability certificate.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1154
9. Medical bills have been produced vide Ex.P.9 to
Ex.P.55 and Rs.46,922/- is awarded towards medical
expenses, Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards pain and
suffering, Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards food and
nourishment, Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards attendant
charges, Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards travelling
expenses and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of
amenities.
10. Wound certificate marked at Ex.P.5 did not
indicate any serious injury. Having taken note of the
same, the Tribunal awarded Rs.86,922/- as compensation.
Since the injured continued in his job as a police
constable, non-awarding of compensation towards loss of
future income due to disability and loss of earning during
laid up period is thus justified.
11. So also, since the injured has suffered only
minor injuries, non-awarding of compensation on account
of future medical expenses is also justified.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1154
12. Viewed from any angle, this Court does not find
any infirmity in the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Admission declined. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
