Karnataka High Court
Shri Rayappa Raygouda Byatgar vs Shri Abdul Kareem S/O Sayad Abbas on 2 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
M.F.A. CROSS OBJ. NO.100061 OF 2023 (MV-I)
C/W M.F.A. NO.103346 OF 2022 (MV-D) AND
M.F.A. NO.103376 OF 2022 (MV-I)
IN MFA CROB NO. 100061/2023:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. RAYAPPA RAYGOUDA BYATGAR,
AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, (NOW NIL),
R/O. HANUMAN GALLIM, KEDNUR,
TALUK & DISTRICT. BELAGVI, PIN CODE-591143.
...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. ABDUL KAREEM S/O. SAYAD ABBAS,
AGE. MAJOR OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. RAJENDRA PRASAD HOUSING SOCIETY,
SHANTI NAGAR, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI,
Digitally DISTRICT DHARWAD, PIN CODE-580023.
signed by
MANJANNA
E 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
Location:
HIGH COURT II FLOOR, SHRINATH COMPLEX,
OF
KARNATAKA NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT. DHARWAD. PIN CODE-590023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWAR DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.103376/2022 FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT-1988, AMENDED ACT, 2019, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED IN MVC NO.
2078/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-V, BELAGAVI, AT
BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
IN MFA NO. 103346 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
II FLOOR, SHRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI,
NOW REPTD. BY REGIONAL MANAGER
2ND FLOOR, KALBURGI-BHADRAPUR INFINITY
PINTO ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BALAPPA MARUTI BUKANATTI,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SHAHBANDAR, TAL. HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591243.
2. FAKIRAPPA MARUTI BUKANATTI,
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SHAHBANDAR, TAL. HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591243.
3. SIDDAPPA MARUTI BUKANATTI,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SHAHABANDAR, TAL. HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591243.
4. CHANDRU MARUTI BUKANATTI,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. SHAHABANDAR, TAL: HUKKERI,
DISTRICT: BELAGAVI-591243.
5. ABDUL KAREEM S/O. SAYADABBAS
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. RAJENDRA PRASAD HOUSING SOCIETY,
SHANTI NAGAR, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-V, BELAGAVI IN MVC
NO.2079/2021, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & EQUITY.
IN MFA NO. 103376 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,
II FLOOR, SHRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI,
NOW REPT. BY REGIONAL MANAGER,
(DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY),
2ND FLOOR, KALBURGI-BHADRAPUR INFINITY
PINTO ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADHUKESHWAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAYAPPA RAYAGOUDA BYATGAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. HANUMAN GALLI, KEDNUR,
BELAGAVI-591143.
2. ABDUL KAREEM S/O. SAYADABBAS,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. RAJENDRA PRASAD HOUSEING SOCIETY,
SHANTI NAGAR, KESHWAPUR,
HUBBALLI-580023.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV. FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988, PRAYING TO CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND
ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.08.2022 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-V, BELAGAVI IN MVC
NO.2078/2021, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS AND CROB, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. As these appeals and the cross objection arise out
of common judgment and award dated 18.08.2022 passed by
the IV Additional District Judge and MACT IV, Belagavi in
M.V.C. Nos.2078 and 2079 of 2021 ("Tribunal" for short), they
are heard together and disposed off by this common judgment.
2. M.F.A. CROB. No.100061/2023 is filed by the cross
objector - claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. Whereas, M.F.A. No.103346/2022 and
M.F.A. No.103376/2022 are filed by the appellant - insurer of
the offending vehicle seeking reduction of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as they are referred to in the claim petitions before
the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts of the cases of the claimants and
Insurance Company in the appeals and the cross objection are
as under:
On 14.09.2021 at 05:30 p.m., claimant Rayappa Raygouda
Byatgar alongwith the deceased Avanakka @ Avanavva Maruti
Butanatti was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
registration No.KA-22/EJ-7108 from Kednur Village towards
Shahbandar. The claimant was riding his motorcycle with
moderate speed on the left side of the road, when the
motorcycle came near Muktimath cross, Bhutramanhatti Village
limits on N.H.4 road, at that time, a tanker lorry bearing
registration No.KA-52/9255 came from hind side i.e., from
Belagavi towards Bhutramanhatti, drove the same in rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of claimant.
Due to the said impact, claimant Rayappa and the pillion rider
Avanakka sustained injuries. Hence, they were shifted to Vijaya
Hospital, Belagavi. Avanakka died on account of injury at the
hospital on 14.09.2021 and the claimant Rayappa took
treatment as in-patient from 14.09.2021 till 22.09.2021.
Hence, the claimant Rayappa filed petition in M.V.C.
No.2078/2021 and the dependants of Avanakka filed petition in
M.V.C. No.2079/2021 on the ground that the claimants are
children of deceased Avanakka. In the accident, the claimant
Rayappa sustained two grievous injuries and two simple
injuries and the Doctor issued permanent disability at 45% with
respect to particular limb and the Tribunal considered disability
at 15%. The claimant Rayappa was aged about 54 years and
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
was doing agriculture work and earning more than Rs.20,000/-
per month and considering an oral and documentary evidence
on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of
claimant. Aggrieved by the judgment and award, the claimant
and insurer have filed the appeals and cross objection.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
claimants and the Insurance Company and perused the
judgment and award of the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that
the Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record has awarded fair compensation in respect of death of
Avanakka and so far as cross objector in M.F.A. CROB.
No.100061/2023, the Tribunal has not considered the nature of
injuries sustained by the claimant and the medical expenses
incurred by the claimant. The Tribunal has not awarded a fair
and reasonable compensation on the heads, food nourishment,
transportation, attendant charges, loss of amenities, etc.
Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
contended that the offending lorry in question was not involved
in the accident. As per Ex.P4 - IMV report, no damages are
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
found in the rear side of the motorcycle, and all medical bills
are manipulated in order to seek higher compensation. As per
the charge sheet, the date of death of Avanakka was
14.09.2021, but as per the postmortem report, she died on
15.09.2021. Hence, there is a manipulation in the entire
medical records.
8. The counsel for the Insurance Company further
contended that all sons of deceased Avanakka are major sons
and therefore, they are not entitled for loss of dependency.
However, they are entitled for loss of estate. On all these
grounds, he prayed to dismiss the cross objection.
9. In view of the contentions urged by the both
parties, the following points that arise for Court's consideration
in these cases are:
i. Whether the Insurance Company has made out
sufficient grounds that the lorry in question was
not involved in the accident, hence, it is not
liable to pay any compensation.
ii. Whether Insurance Company has made out
sufficient grounds that all major sons of
deceased Avanakka are not entitled for loss of
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
dependency, but they are entitled for loss of
estate?
iii. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal in both the petitions is just and
reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
10. The Insurance Company has taken up the
contention that the lorry in question is not involved in the
accident and there is no damage caused to the hind side of
motorcycle vide Ex.P4 - IMV report. In order to substantiate
the contention of Insurance Company, none of the witness
examined by it and no documents are placed on record except
producing insurance policy vide Ex.R1. On the other hand, the
claimants are examined on oath as P.Ws.1 and 2 and the
Doctor, who issued disability certificate in favour of the
claimant examined as P.W.3 and relied upon Exs.P1 to P18. As
per the contents of Ex.P1 - FIR, Ex.P2 - complaint, Ex.P3 -
spot mahazar, Ex.P6 - charge sheet, more particularly, column
No.17 of the charge sheet clearly establishes that on
14.09.2021 at 05:30 p.m., the claimant Rayappa was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EJ-
7108 with deceased Avanakka on N.H.4 road near Muktimath
cross, Bhutramanhatti Village limits on N.H.4 road, the driver of
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
tanker lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-9255 came in a high
speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
motorcycle of the claimant. In fact, no damages are found on
the hind side of the motorcycle, it can be easily presumed that
the height of motorcycle is very less than 2.5 feet and the
height of bodyguard of lorry would be more than 2.5 feet.
Hence, the body of the lorry may not come into contact with
the motorcycle, but it may come into contact with the person of
pillion rider and hence, the accident occurred. Admittedly, the
pillion rider Avanakka sustained severe injuries and succumbed
to the accidental injuries. Hence, there are no merits in the
contention of learned counsel for Insurance Company that the
vehicle was not involved in the accident.
11. Further, the Insurance Company has not challenged
the contents of charge sheet before any competent Court of law
and the burden casted upon the Insurance Company is also not
properly discharged. Therefore, now at the appellate stage, the
Insurance Company cannot take such plea. Looking into any
angle, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability
since the insurance policy was in force and the rider of the
motorcycle as well as the driver of offending vehicle were
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of
accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation.
12. So far as quantum is concerned, in M.F.A. CROB.
No.100061/2023, as per the cross objector - Rayappa, he was
aged about 54 years on the date of the accident and he was
doing coolie work and earning a sum of Rs.51,000/- per month.
To substantiate the claim of the claimant - injured Rayappa, he
himself examined on oath as P.W.1 and relied upon wound
certificate - Ex.P5, 41 medical bills - Ex.P12 and as per Ex.P5 -
the wound certificate, the claimant Rayappa sustained the
following injuries:
"i. left hand - swelling + dorsum of hand. X-ray -
left hand # 5th metacarpal
ii. right knee - abrasion + anterior. Swelling + 4 X
4 c.m.
iii. x-ray right knee - NAD. Left knee - deglowing
wound + anterior aspect. Bone fragment and
muscle exposed.
X-ray- left knee c femur # lateral femoral
condyle
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
Left knee c leg # patella communited
iv. Abdomen - tenderness + left side of abdomen.
CT abdomen and pelvis (plaint and contrast). No
signs of acute abdomen."
13. P.W.3 - Dr. S.D.Patil was examined by the claimant
Rayappa. As per evidence of P.W.3, the claimant sustained two
fractures and two simple injuries and he has also stated that
the claimant has got permanent physical disability of 40% with
respect to his left leg and 5% with respect to left hand. The
Tribunal considered 15% permanent physical disability of the
claimant considering Ex.P10 - disability certificate. The Tribunal
considering the nature of injuries and disability has granted
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head pain and suffering
which is not reasonable one. The claimant sustained in all four
injuries, injury Nos.1 and 3 are grievous in nature and injury
Nos.2 and 4 are simple in nature. For one grievous injury, as
per settled law, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.40,000/- and for additional fracture, he is entitled for
Rs.10,000/- and for simple injuries, he is entitled for amount of
Rs.5,000/- each. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.60,000/- under the head pain and sufferings.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
14. Towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant
charges, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- which
is not reasonable one. Hence, additional compensation of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is
awarded under the head food and nourishment,
transportation and attendant charges.
15. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.91,050/-
towards medical expenses, which is reasonable amount and
no interference is called for by this Court in that regard.
16. Towards loss of income during laid up period,
the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- considering the
nature of injuries suggest that he must have been under rest
and treatment for a period of three months and therefore, the
Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X 3)
which is reasonable one and no interference is called for by this
Court in that regard.
17. Towards loss of amenities, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the said head which is not
reasonable one. Hence, additional sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded
under the said head considering the nature of injuries sustained
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
and period spent as in-patient in the hospital. Accordingly, a
sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
18. Towards loss of future income, the Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- considering the income at
Rs.15,000/- and multiplier at 9 and disability at 15% which is
reasonable one and no interference is called for in that regard.
Hence, the claimant Rayappa is entitled to the following:
Pain and sufferings Rs.60,000/-
Food, nourishment, travelling conveyance Rs.30,000/-
charges and attendant charges
Medical expenses Rs.91,050/-
Loss of income during laid up period Rs.45,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
Loss of future income Rs.2,43,000/-
Total Rs.4,99,050/-
Less: compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.4,59,770/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.39,280/-
(Rounded off to) Rs.40,000/-
19. Insofar as the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company in M.F.A. No.103346/2022, in respect of quantum of
compensation awarded on account of death of Avanakka, the
counsel contended that all claimants are major sons of
deceased Avanakka. From the perusal of the materials available
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
on record, the Insurance Company has not placed any material
before the Tribunal or before this Court that all claimants i.e.,
sons of Avanakka were not dependants on their deceased
mother.
20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Birender and others1 at
paragraphs 12 and 14 held as under:
12. The legal representatives of the deceased could
move application for compensation by virtue of
clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married
son who is also earning and not fully dependant
on the deceased, would be still covered by the
expression "legal representative" of the
deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra)
had expounded that liability to pay
compensation under the Act does not cease
because of absence of dependency of the
concerned legal representative. Notably, the
expression "legal representative" has not been
defined in the Act. In Manjuri Bera (supra), the
Court observed thus:
"9. In terms of clause (c) of subsection (1)
of Section 166 of the Act in case of death,
all or any of the legal representatives of the
1
(2020) 11 SCC 356
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
deceased become entitled to compensation
and any such legal representative can file a
claim petition. The proviso to said sub-
section makes the position clear that where
all the legal representatives had not joined,
then application can be made on behalf of
the legal representatives of the deceased by
impleading those legal representatives as
respondents. Therefore, the High Court was
justified in its view that the appellant could
maintain a claim petition in terms of Section
166 of the Act.
10. .....The Tribunal has a duty to make an
award, determine the amount of
compensation which is just and proper and
specify the person or persons to whom such
compensation would be paid. The latter part
relates to the entitlement of compensation
by a person who claims for the same.
11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal
representative" means a person who in law
represents the estate of a de ceased
person, and includes any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the
deceased and where a party sues or is sued
in a representative character the person on
whom the estate devolves on the death of
the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar
terms is the definition of legal representa-
tive under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).
12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of
Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino v.
Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275
the definition contained in Section
2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its
scope is wide, it is not confined to legal
heirs only. Instead it stipulates that a
person who may or may not be legal heir
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
competent to inherit the property of the
deceased can represent the estate of the
deceased person. It includes heirs as well
as persons who represent the estate even
without title either as executors or
administrators in possession of the estate of
the deceased. All such persons would be
covered by the expression "legal represen-
tative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC v.
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234
a legal representative is one who suffers on
account of death of a person due to a motor
vehicle accident and need not necessarily
be a wife, husband, parent and child."
13. xxx
14. It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to
apply for compensation. Having said that,
it must necessarily follow that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased being
legal representatives have a right to apply for
compensation and it would be the bounden duty
of the Tribunal to consider the application
irrespective of the fact whether the concerned
legal representative was fully dependant on the
deceased and not to limit the claim towards
conventional heads only. The evidence on record
in the present case would suggest that the
claimants were working as agricultural labourers
on contract basis and were earning meagre
income between Rs.1,00,000/ and Rs.1,50,000/
per annum. In that sense, they were largely
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
dependant on the earning of their mother and in
fact, were staying with her, who met with an
accident at the young age of 48 years."
21. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
present case and the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra,
the sons were dependant on the deceased mother as on the
date of the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly granted
compensation under the head loss of dependency. So far as the
medical bills are concerned, the counsel for Insurance Company
has rightly pointed out that Exs.P16 and P17 medical bills were
generated after the death of deceased Avanakka, in fact,
deceased Avanakka died on 14.09.2021, it shows that Exs.P16
and P17 were generated two days after the death of Avanakka.
Hence, the medical bills cannot be taken into consideration for
grant of compensation under the head medical expenses.
Hence, the compensation awarded under the head medical
expenses at Rs.18,305/- is not in accordance with law and the
same has to be deducted out of the total compensation granted
in M.V.C. No.2079/2021 i.e., Rs.5,38,305 - Rs.18,305 =
Rs.5,20,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a sum
of Rs.5,20,000/-. Accordingly, I pass the following:
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
MFA CROB No. 100061 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
MFA No. 103376 of 2022
ORDER
(i) M.F.A. CROB. No.100061/2023 filed by the
claimant - Rayappa is partly allowed.
(ii) M.F.A. No.103346/2022 filed by the Insurance
Company is partly allowed.
(iii) M.F.A. No.103376/2022 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed.
(iv) The judgment and award dated 18.08.2022
passed by the IV Additional District Judge and
MACT-V, Belagavi in M.V.C. No.2078/2021 is
modified to the extent stated herein above. The
claimant - Rayappa is entitled for an additional
enhanced compensation of Rs.40,000/- with an
interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization. The claimant
is not entitled for the interest for the delayed
period of 128 days in filing the appeal.
(v) The respondent - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced compensation
amount alongwith interest within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
(vi) On deposit of the entire compensation amount,
the same is ordered to be released in favour of
the claimant - Rayappa on proper identification.
(vii) The judgment and award dated 18.08.2022
passed by the IV Additional District Judge and
MACT-V, Belagavi in M.V.C. No.2079/2021 is
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:9029
C/W MFA No. 103346 of 2022 &
modified to the extent stated herein above. The
claimants are entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,20,000/- as against Rs.5,38,305/- awarded
by the Tribunal, with an interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
(viii) The amount in deposit, if any, in both the cases
be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal
forthwith.
(ix) Registry to draw modified award accordingly.
(x) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment to the Tribunal forthwith alongwith
Trial Court records.
(xi) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSH/ct-an
