Karnataka High Court
Chaman S/O Mohammadayz @ Hayesab ... vs Ashfak S/O Ibrahim Gangur on 2 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:70
MFA No. 23516 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24465 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23516 OF 2012 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24465 OF 2012
IN M. F. A. NO. 23516 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
E-8 EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-302022
(INSURER OF GOODS VEHI)NO. KA-22/A-5293) (POLICY
NO. 10003/31/12/071225, VALID FROM 27/04/2011 TO
26/04/2012), NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
LEGAL.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESHA S.GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. CHAMAN
S/O. MOHAMMAD AYAZ @ HAYESAB BALIGAR,
Digitally signed AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE NOW NILL,
by BHARATHI
HM R/O: JANATA PLOT, VANTAMURI COLONY,
BHARATHI
HM Date: BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
2024.01.22
16:31:06
+0530
2. SHRI. ASHFAK
S/O. IBRAHIM GANGUR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 4TH CROSS, SAYYAD GALLI,
GANDHINAGAR, BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF GOODS VEHICLE
NO. KA-22/A-5293)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R.LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. D.C. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:70
MFA No. 23516 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24465 of 2012
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD:21-03-2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1616/2011 ON THE FILE OF
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV AND MEMBER, ADDL.
MACT,BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,01,700/-
WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 9% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
IN M. F. A. NO. 24465 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
SHRI. CHAMAN
S/O. MOHAMMADAYAZ @ HAYESAB BALIGAR,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE NOW NILL,
R/O: JANATA PLOT, VANTAMURI COLONY,
BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HANAMANT R.LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. ASHFAK S/O. IBRAHIM GANGUR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 4TH CROSS, SAYYAD GALLI,
GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
2. THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
E-8 EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR, JAIPUR,
RAJASTHAN-302022.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.C. MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 21-03-2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.1616/2011 ON THE FILE OF
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-IV AND MEMBER, ADDL.
MACT,BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:70
MFA No. 23516 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 24465 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel Sri.Hanumanth R. Latur and
Sri.S.S.Gundi for the parties.
2. These two appeals are filed challenging the validity of
the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1616/2011
dated 21.03.2012 on the file of Fast Track -IV and Addl.
MACT, Belagavi.
3. The accident and liability of the insurance company is
not in dispute.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The claimant has filed application under Section 166
of MV Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-
contending that on 05.05.2011 at about 2.30 pm, when
the claimant was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-22/EE-
6215, when he reached petrol pump at Gandi nagar, Tata
ACE vehicle bearing reg. No.KA-22/A-5293 came in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant
and claimant fell down and was taken to a private hospital,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:70
initially and then to the Lake View hospital at Belagavi for
higher medical care.
5. There is a delay in lodging the complaint inasmuch as
complaint came to be lodged only on 07.05.2011 for the
accidental injuries sustained by the claimant on
05.05.2011 at 2.30 pm.
6. The reason for the delay is explained stating that he
was not in a position to move out and give information to
the Police and he came to know about the involvement of
the vehicle later and therefore, complaint is belated.
7. However, wound certificate that has been issued and
relied upon by the claimant would go to show that doctor
at Lake view hospital has treated him at about 4.30 pm on
06.05.2011 and crime number of the FIR which is lodged
on 07.05.2011 is already mentioned in the wound
certificate and thereby insurance company has challenged
that vehicle bearing No.KA-22/A-5293 is not involved in
the accident and is a implanted vehicle for claiming
compensation by active collusion of the claimant and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:70
owner of the offending vehicle and sought for allowing the
appeal of the insurance company.
8. Whereas, learned counsel Sri.Hanumanth R. Latur for
claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation by
contending that tribunal has not properly taken into
consideration the loss of income and injuries sustained by
the claimant.
9. In the light of above arguments, this court perused
the material on record meticulously.
10. Admittedly, wound certificate is issued by the doctor
marked at Ex.P4 mentions a crime number of the FIR
which was lodged on 07.05.2011 for the incident that has
said to have taken place on 05.05.2011. Ex.P.4 also
discloses that the doctor has seen the claimant for the first
time on 05.05.2011 at 4.30 pm. Taking note of the
injuries sustained by the claimant and also taking note of
other aspects of the matter, especially, discharge
summary placed on record, this court is of the considered
NC: 2024:KHC-D:70
opinion that the compensation awarded by the tribunal
needs to be reduced by Rs.50,000/- globally.
11. Technical plea that has been taken by the insurance
company stating that vehicle is not at all involved cannot
be countenanced in law for the simple reason that no
other record has been placed by the insurance company in
appointing the private investigation agency with regard to
the involvement of the Tata Ace vehicle as referred supra
in order to summon the owner of Tata Ace vehicle and
examine him as witness on behalf of the insurance
company.
12. Though there is a ground urged on behalf of the
insurance company that the insurance company is not
liable to pay the adjudicated compensation, the same can
not be countenanced in law in view of above discussion.
13. Insofar as quantum of compensation is concerned,
the amount awarded by the tribunal though having regard
to the notional monthly income being taken less, taking
note of the fact that the case sheet is not produced and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:70
there is a doubt as to when the claimant has admitted
himself into hospital, reducing a sum of Rs.50,000/- from
the assessed compensation would meet the ends of
justice. Accordingly, appeal of the insurance company
needs to be allowed in part and that of claimant is
dismissed.
14. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) MFA No.23576/2012 of insurance
company is allowed in part.
ii) MFA No.24465/2012 of claimant is
dismissed.
iii) The claimant is entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,51,700/- as against awarded sum of
Rs.2,01,700/- ordered by the trial court with
interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
