Karnataka High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Company Ltd vs Ramappa Santram Basaragi on 4 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:197
MFA No. 101968 of 2017
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101968 OF 2017 (MV-I)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100113 OF 2017
IN M.F. A. NO. 101968 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
HALL MARK BUILDING, 3RD DESAI CROSS,
(BESIDE INDUSIND BANK)
HUBBALLI-580029,
NOW REPRESENTED BY DULY
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMAPPA SANTRAM BASARAGI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE-COOLIE,
NOW NIL, R/O: KARIKATTI, TALUK: HUKKERI,
Digitally DIST: BELAGAVI-591-309.
signed by
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M 2. SRI. MALLAPPA SATYAPPA THUPALI,
HM Date: AT: POST: BENAKANAHOLI, NARASINGPUR,
2024.01.09
10:34:38 TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591-309.
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.03.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1470/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF AMOUNT OF RS. 7,05,000/-
ALONGWITH SIMPLE INTEREST, AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A. FROM
10.07.2015, TILL REALIZATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:197
MFA No. 101968 of 2017
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2017
IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100113 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SHRI. RAMAPPA S/O. SANTRAM BASARAGI,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE-COOLIE,
NOW NIL, R/O: KARIKATTI,
TALUK: HUKKERI-591254, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. GEETHA K.M. @ PAWAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. MALLAPPA SATYAPPA THUPALI,
AT: POST: BENAKANAHOLI, NARASINGPUR,
TALUK: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591254.
2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY CO., LTD.,
HALL MARK BUILDING, 3RD DESAI CROSS,
(BESIDE INDUSIND BANK)
HUBBALLI-580029,.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.101968/2017 IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.03.2017 PASSED
IN MVC NO.1470/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND MFA.CROB,
COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:197
MFA No. 101968 of 2017
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. S K. Kayakamath, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurer and Smt. Geetha K. M, learned counsel for
respondent No.1/claimant.
2. This appeal and cross objection are arising out of
the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1470/2015 on the
file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T,
Belagavi, dated 21.03.2017.
3. In respect of road traffic accident said to have
occurred on 01-06-2015 at about 2.00 P.M on Karikatti village,
involving motor cycle bearing No. KA-23-EJ-8862, claimant
filed a claim petition seeking compensation. On contest, the
claim petition came to be allowed in a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- as
under:
Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of future happiness and amenities Rs. 60,000/-
Loss of earning during the period of Rs. 36,000/-
treatment
Incidental charges Rs. 32,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 41,000/-
Loss of future income Rs.4,86,000/-
Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.7,20,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:197
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2017
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance
Company has preferred the present appeal contending that in
the absence of any proper proof of income, the Tribunal ought
to have taken the notional income in a sum Rs.8,000/- per
month for the accidental injury of the year 2015, whereas the
Tribunal has taken sum of Rs.9,000/- per month and on the
other heads also, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation
on the higher side and sought for allowing the appeal.
5. Per contra, Smt. Geeta K. M, learned counsel
representing the claimant contended that the Tribunal has
taken into consideration that the claimant was an agriculturist
and therefore, assessing the income of the injured at
Rs.9,000/- per month is just and proper based on the material
evidence placed on record. Therefore, sought for dismissal of
the appeal filed by the Insurance company.
6. In support of her cross-objection, she contended
that, the Tribunal has not granted proper compensation in
respect of the pain and suffering, incidental charges, loss of
earning capacity during the period of treatment and loss of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:197
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2017
future medical expenses and sought for enhancing the
compensation.
7. This Court perused the material on record
meticulously and contentions raised by the parties.
8. Admittedly, no proper evidence is placed on record
by the claimant to establish the monthly income. In the
absence of proper proof of the income placed by the claimant
on record, the Tribunal was bound to consider the monthly
income on notional basis. This Court is consistently assessing
the monthly income for the accidental injuries of the year 2015
notionally in a sum of Rs.8,000/-. However, the Tribunal has
assessed the income of the injured at 9,000/- per month, which
is on the higher side. Therefore, a case is made out by the
Insurance Company to seek for reduction of the quantum of
compensation. If the loss of future income is assessed at the
rate of Rs.8,000/- per month, there will be a considerable
reduction in the quantum of compensation.
9. Taking note of the fact that the loss of future
medical expenses is assessed only at Rs.15,000/- and the
earning capacity has also been reduced to considerable extent
NC: 2024:KHC-D:197
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2017
by taking note of the contents of the disability certificate, this
Court is of the considered opinion that reducing the quantum of
compensation for a sum of Rs.7,20,000/- to Rs.5,50,000/-
would meet the ends of justice without further discussion on
the other aspects of the matter.
10. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) Appeal filed by the Insurance Company in
MFA No.101968/2017 is allowed in part. As
against a sum of Rs.7,20,000/-, the
claimant would be entitled to Rs.5,50,000/-
with 8% interest per annum from the date
of petition till date of realization.
b) The cross objections filed by the claimant is
dismissed.
c) The Tribunal has ordered for deposit of 90%
of the compensation, the same is also
modified by directing 50% of the amount is
to be kept in deposit and the balance to be
dispersed immediately to the claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:197
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100113 of 2017
d) The amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement
and excess if any be refunded to the
insurance company.
e) Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal
forthwith.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
