Karnataka High Court
Huligesh @ Doddamani Huligesh vs Chinnapuri S/O Bheemappa on 26 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
MFA No. 100793 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100793 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103688 OF 2015
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100792 OF 2016
IN MFA NO.100793/2016
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI
NOW REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. HULIGESH @ DODDAMANI HULIGESH
S/O. HULEPPA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. EX-LOADER
Digitally signed
by MANJANNA R/O. CHORANUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUKA
E NOW RESIDING AT HALLIPURA IN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BALLARI TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
KARNATAKA
2. CHINNAPURI S/O. BHEEMAPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. THIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
3. S. POMPANNA S/O. MARAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY
R/O. UPPARA HALLI VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUKA
DISTRICT: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
MFA No. 100793 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.281/2013 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL XII, BALLARI, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ETC.
IN MFA NO.103688/2015
BETWEEN:
HULIGESH @ DODDAMANI HULIGESH
S/O. HULEPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. EX-LOADER
R/O. CHORANUR VILLAGE IN SANDUR TALUK AND
NOW RESIDENT OF HALLIPURA IN
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHINNAPURI S/O. BHEEMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER
R/O. THIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
2. S. POMPANNA S/O. MARAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY
R/O. UPPARA HALLI VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. KOLLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-3;
R-1 AND R-2 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED BY
THE MACT-XII, BALLARI, IN MVC NO.281/2013 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION TO THE APPELLANT AND ETC.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
MFA No. 100793 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
IN MFA NO.100792/2016
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
PARVATI NAGAR, BALLARI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
DEPUTY MANAGER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MARESH @ MARAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC. EX-LOADER,
R/O. CHORANUR VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUKA ,
NOW RESIDING AT HALLIPURA IN BALLARI TALUKA,
DISTRICT: BALLARI.
2. CHINNAPURI S/O. BHEEMAPPA,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER,
R/O. THIPPANAMARADI VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
3. S. POMPANNA S/O. MARAPPA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC. OWNER OF THE TIPPER LORRY,
R/O. UPPARA HALLI VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUKA, DISTRICT: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2015 PASSED IN
M.V.C.NO.280/2013 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL XII, BALLARI, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
MFA No. 100793 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondents
on admission.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matters are taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission itself.
MFA No.100792/2016 and MFA No.100793/2016 are filed
by the Insurance company challenging the judgment and award
passed in MVC No.280/2013 and MVC No.281/2013 dated
14.08.2015 by Member, MACT-XII, Bellari and MFA
No.103688/2015 is filed by the claimant seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to, as they are referred to in the claim petitions before the
tribunal.
Perused the judgment and award of the tribunal.
3. The only point raised by the Insurance company is that
the claimants were traveling on 08.01.2002 in goods vehicle
Tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA.35/3180, which was
going to HRG Mines, Sandur for loading the iron ore and when
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
the said vehicle reached near Maliyamma Temple at about 12
noon, the driver of the said lorry drove the same in rash and
negligent manner, as a result of which, the said lorry turned
turtled on the left side of the road. Hence, the claimants
sustained injuries and immediately they were shifted to
Government Hospital, Sandur for treatment. This led to
registration of FIR and investigation.
4. Considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4,
documents at Exs-P1 to P13 and the oral evidence of RW.1, the
tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.95,900/- in MVC
No.280/2013 and the claimant in MVC No.281/2013 was
granted compensation at Rs.83,200/-. Being aggrieved by the
judgment and award of the tribunal, the Insurance Company
filed appeals in MFA No.100792/2016 and MFA
No.100793/2016. The Insurance Company having admitted the
quantum of liability in MFA No.103687/2015 disposed of on
23.06.2016 before Lok Adalat and therefore, the Insurance
Company now cannot take up the contention that they have
disputed the liability in MVC No.281/2013. Hence, now the only
point that would arise for Court's consideration is:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
"Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by
the tribunal is just and proper or does it call for
reduction of compensation?
5. As per the material available on record, the claimant in
MVC No.281/2013 sustained fracture of left upper limb at upper
1/3rd and scratch mark on the left side of thigh on the left
lower limb. As per settled law, for one grievous injury, the
claimant is entitled to receive Rs.40,000/- and for one simple
injury, he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In all,
the claimant is entitled for Rs.45,000/- under the head 'pain
and suffering' as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards 'medical
expenses and also attendant charges', which is not reasonable
one. Hence, an additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- is
awarded under the head 'medical expenses, food, nourishment,
diet, conveyance charges, attendant charges etc.,'.
6. The tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.43,200/- under the
head 'loss of future amenities' due to disability;, considering
the notional income at Rs.4,500/- and disability at 5%. The
accident is of the year 2002 and as per the circular issued by
the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority and High Court
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
Legal Services committee, for the accident of the year 2002,
the notional income could be taken at Rs.3,250/-.At the time of
accident, the claimant was aged 32 years. Hence, the multiplier
applicable would be '16', as per Sarla Verma and others vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009)6
SCC 121. The Doctor has issued disability at 20%, but the
tribunal considered the disability at 5% which is not reasonable
one. If 7% disability is assessed, then it would meet the ends
of justice. If the disability at 7% of the whole body is taken, the
'loss of future income due to disability', it comes to
Rs.43,680/-(Rs.3,250/- x 12 x 16 x 7/100).
7. Towards 'loss of future amenities', the tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-, which is not
reasonable one. Hence, additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is
awarded under the said head.
8. The tribunal has not awarded any compensation under
the head 'loss of income during laid up period'. If the notional
income is taken at Rs.3,250/- and three months as loss of
income during treatment period, it comes to Rs.9,750/-
(Rs.3,250 x 3) Thus, the claimant is entitled to receive the
compensation under the following heads:-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
Compensation under different Amount in Rs.
Heads
Pain and sufferings 45,000/-
Medical, attendant, nourishment 20,000/-
charges
Loss of future income due to 43,680/-
disability
Loss of amenities 20,000/-
Loss of income during laid up period 9,750/-
TOTAL 1,38,430/-
Compensation awarded by the
Tribunal 83,200/-
BALANCE 55,230/-
9. The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.1,38,430/- as against Rs.83,200/- awarded by the tribunal.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. MFA Nos.100792/2016 and MFA
No.100793/2016 filed by the Insurance Company
are dismissed.
2. MFA No.103688/2015 filed by the claimant in is
allowed-in-part.
3. The judgment and award dated 14.08.2015
passed by MACT-XII, Bellari in MVC No.281/2013
is modified to the extent stated hereinabove.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8739
C/W MFA No. 103688 of 2015, MFA No.
100792 of 2016
4. The claimant is entitled for an additional
enhanced compensation of Rs.55,230/- with
interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date of its realization.
5. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company Ltd., shall
deposit the enhanced compensation with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
judgment.
6. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to
withdraw the enhanced amount.
7. Draw the modified award accordingly.
8. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment to
the concerned Tribunal, along with its records.
8. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MN
