Karnataka High Court
Manikanth S/O Appasaheb Dongare vs Narayan Appasaheb Patil on 8 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:336
MFA No. 24807 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24807 OF 2012 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR. MANIKANTH S/O. APPASAHEB DONGARE,
AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,OCC: STUDENT,
REPT/BY HIS
M/G FATHER APPASAHEB PUNDALIK DONGARE,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING,
R/O.KAROSHI, TQ: CHIKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. ANAND KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. NARAYAN APPASAHEB PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.SHIRDON, TQ: SHIROL,
DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASTRA.
2. THE TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
Digitally
signed by 2ND FLOOR, J.P. DEVI, JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE NO.69,
BHARATHI
BHARATHI H M
MILLERS ROAD,BANGALURU-560052.
HM Date:
2024.01.22
15:16:15 ...RESPONDENTS
+0530
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 12-03-2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.462/2010 ON THE
FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER,
MACT, BELAGAVI, 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:336
MFA No. 24807 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.K.Anandkumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri.G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for the
respondent - Insurance Company.
2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with
the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal.
3. A claim petition came to be filed by the
claimant Sri.Kumar Manikanth in respect of a road traffic
accident involving TATA Sumo vehicle bearing Reg.No.MH-
10/AG-2617 on 21.12.2008 at about 6.30 p.m. The injured
was shifted to hospital and he was treated there. For the
accidental injuries sustained by the claimant, he laid a
claim before the Tribunal.
4. The claim petition was resisted by the
respondents by filing necessary written statements.
5. The Tribunal after raising necessary issues and
considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on
NC: 2024:KHC-D:336
record, awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.84,000/- as
under:
1) Injury pain and agony 25,000/-
2) Medical expenses 12,000/-
3) Nursing attendant charges 5,000/-
extra nourishment
and conveyance
4) Loss of future prospectus 27,000/-
5) Loss of future earning 15,000/-
Total Rs. 84,000/-
6. The claimant being aggrieved by the meager
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, has preferred the
present appeal.
7. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, Sri.K.Anandkumar learned counsel for the
appellant contended that as per Ex.P.9 there are three
mal-united fractures and awarding only Rs.25,000/- as
compensation on the head of pain and suffering is
incorrect.
8. So also, he contended that loss of future
prospects is also not properly assessed by the Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC-D:336
and towards loss of future earning and nourishment and
attendant charges also, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is incorrect and sought for enhancement of
compensation.
9. Per contra, Sri.G.N.Raichur learned counsel
representing the Insurance Company contended that
Dr.S.R.Angadi who is examined as PW.2 is not a treating
doctor and based on the certified issued by
Dr.S.R.Nandeshwar, he has deposed before the Court
which has been properly appreciated by the Tribunal and
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
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
seen that the Tribunal itself has noted that on bone
window evidence of linear fracture of parial bone bilatrary
fracture of roof of the left orbnit is sustained by the
claimant. However, the x-ray report issued by
NC: 2024:KHC-D:336
Dr.S.R.Nandeshwar shows that there are mal united
fractures two on partial bone and one on left orbit.
12. Since the accident is not in dispute and the
offending vehicle was covered with insurance, the only
question needs to be decided in this appeal is awarding
proper quantum of compensation.
13. Admittedly, only Rs.25,000/- is awarded
towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- is awarded
towards nourishment and attendant charges.
Compensation awarded towards loss of future prospects
and loss of future earning is also on lower side.
14. Taking note of the fact that monthly income for
the accidental injury of 2008 is to be assessed at
Rs.4,250/-, the quantum of compensation towards loss of
future earning itself would be enhanced substantially. On
the head of pain and suffering, in view of three fractures,
the Tribunal should have been at least awarded
Rs.50,000/-.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:336
15. As such, instead of enhancing the compensation
on each and every head, if the quantum of compensation
is enhanced from Rs.84,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-, ends of
justice would be met. Accordingly, a case is made out for
allowing the appeal to that extent.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Impugned judgment and award stands modified to
the above extent.
iii. As against Rs.84,000/- awarded by the Tribunal,
the claimant would be entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition
till realization.
iv. Insurance Company is directed to pay/deposit the
balance sum of compensation within four weeks.
Sd/-
JUDGE
