Karnataka High Court
Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd vs Jaffar Sharif S/O. Honnur Sab on 9 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:439
MFA.CROB No. 846 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 20068 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.846 OF 2012 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20068 OF 2012
IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO.846 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
JAFFAR SHARIF S/O. HONNUR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: WELDER-
CUM-AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. JANATHA NAGAR, NEAR B.S.L. FACTORY,
W.NO.17, ANANTHAPUR ROAD, BELLARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BELLARY.
Digitally
signed by
BHARATHI H 2. N.NAGARAJ S/O. NEELAKANTAPPA,
BHARATHI M
HM Date: AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER-CUM-OWNER
2024.01.22
15:17:16 OF THE TATA SUMO BEARING NO.KA-34/5802,
+0530
R/O. NEAR SHAIKSHAVALI DARGA,
BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLORI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.20068/2012 FILED U/O.41 RULE
22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18-11-2011 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.642/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-IX,
BELLARY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:439
MFA.CROB No. 846 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 20068 of 2012
IN M.F.A. NO.20068 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GEN. INS. CO. LTD., BELLARY
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL CLAIMS,
CTS, 472-474, V A KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CIRCLE,
DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLORI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. JAFFAR SHARIF S/O. HONNUR SAB,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: WELDER-
CUM-AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. JANATA NAGAR, NEAR B.S.L. FACTORY,
W.NO.17, ANANTAPUR ROAD, BELLARY.
2. SRI. NAGARAJ S/O. NEELAKANTAPPA,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER/BUSINESS,
R/O. NEAR SHAIKSHAVALI DARGA,
BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 18-11-2011, PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.642/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-IX, BELLARY,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,21,600/- WITH INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THESE MFA.CROB AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL,
COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:439
MFA.CROB No. 846 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 20068 of 2012
JUDGMENT
Though the matters are listed for admission, by consent
of parties, these matters are taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri. Shivaraja Hiremath and
Shri.Nagaraj C. Kollori.
3. MFA No.20068/2012 filed by the Insurance
Company and MFA Cross Objection No.846/2012 filed by the
claimant.
4. These two matters arise out of the judgment and
award passed in MVC No.642/2011 on the file of Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-IX, Bellary dated 18.11.2011.
5. A claim petition came to be filed by the claimant
who is the injured in the road traffic accident occurred on
10.08.2010 involving the motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-34/R-3877 and Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-
34/5802 near Lakshmi Nagar Camp on Siruguppa-Bellary road.
6. Claim petition was resisted by the Insurance
Company on the ground that there is a delay in filing the
complaint and no medical records are produced in support of
the claim.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:439
7. The Tribunal after raising necessary issues,
recorded the evidence of the claimant and also doctor by name
Dr. Syed Sadath Hussain and considered the probative value of
the documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to
P.32 and allowed the claim petition in part by grating sum of
Rs.5,21,600/-
8. Being aggrieved by the same the Insurance
Company is in appeal and so also injured has filed cross
objection.
9. Shri. Nagaraj C. Kollori, learned counsel
representing the Insurance Company vehemently contended
that the Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact that there is
a delay of 29 days in lodging the complaint and therefore, the
very accident itself is doubtful and only in order to claim
compensation the case has been registered in oblique motive
which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial
Judge and sought for allowing the appeal.
10. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant also
argued that since there is a involvement of two vehicles, the
Trial Court ought to have taken into consideration contributory
negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:439
penalizing the Insurance Company of Tata Sumo vehicle alone
have resulted in miscarriage of justice.
11. To counter the said arguments, Shri. Shivaraja
Hiremath, learned counsel for claimants contended that the
charge sheet came to be filed against the driver of the Tata
Sumo vehicle and therefore no contributory negligence can be
attributed to the rider of the motor cycle.
12. These aspects of the matter has been taken note by
the Tribunal by fixing the liability on the appellant-Insurance
Company. He also sought for suitable enhancement of
compensation.
13. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
14. On such perusal, it is seen that no doubt there is a
delay in lodging the complaint, but every delay could not be
construed as a concoction.
15. The Investigation Officer after registration of
belated complaint, conducted the detail investigation and also
IMV report marked at Ex.P.5, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar
and the owner of Tata Sumo vehicle obtaining the custody of
the Tata Sumo vehicle and admitting the accident, would be
NC: 2024:KHC-D:439
sufficient enough to establish that there was an accident on
10.08.2010 involving the motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-34/R-3877 and Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-
34/5802. The charge sheet also came to be filed. There is no
material on record to establish that the driver of Tata Sumo
vehicle challenged the charge sheet and he was exonerated
from the criminal liability.
16. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal for the
purpose of ascertaining the road traffic accident so as to make
available a right for the claimant to seek compensation has
recorded a categorical finding that the material placed on
record on behalf of the claimant is sufficient enough to
establish the road traffic accident.
17. Even after re-appreciation of the material on
record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in recording
such a finding.
18. This would take this Court to the next aspect of the
matter namely the quantum of compensation.
19. Admittedly the claimant has suffered fracture of
right femur both the bones of right leg, right humerus and right
NC: 2024:KHC-D:439
clavicle. Surgery was conducted and implants were placed for
uniting the said fractures.
20. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the
Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- on the head of pain
and suffering and towards the medical bills has been taken into
consideration and Rs.3000/- is ordered. Attendant charges and
nursing charges were ordered in a sum of Rs.3,000/-, which if
compare from the compensation to be awarded as on today,
may be less.
21. But taking note of the fact that as on the date of
the accident in the year 2010 the sum of Rs.3000/- was being
ordered by the Tribunal consistently. Therefore, the question of
grant of loss of future earnings the Tribunal has granted a sum
of Rs.3,45,600/-.
22. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, this
Court is of the considered opinion that as the law existed which
would enable the Tribunal to arrive at a just compensation is
just and proper having regard to the accident is of the year
2010.
23. Therefore, no interference is called for insofar as
the quantum of compensation either by looking into the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:439
grounds of the appeal memorandum of the Insurance Company
or the grounds that has been urged on behalf of the claimant.
Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
proper. So also no contributory negligence can be attributed to
the rider of motor cycle as charge sheet is filed against the
driver of Tata Sumo Vehicle.
24. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Both the appeal and cross objection are
dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
