Karnataka High Court
Neelakanta S/O Rudrappa vs M B Govindappa on 4 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4798
MFA No. 100965 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100965 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NEELAKANTA S/O RUDRAPPA
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: SHEPHERD,
R/O: VITTALAPURA VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT HOSPET.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M B GOVINDAPPA S/O VENKATESHULU,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF
LORRY BEARING, REGN.NO.KA-34/8999,
R/O: H.NO.178, WARD NO.XXV,
RAMANJINEYA NAGAR, BALLARI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
Digitally THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
signed by
ROHAN
ROHAN
HADIMANI
BALLARI.
HADIMANI T
T Date:
2024.03.05
11:09:48
...RESPONDENTS
+0530
(BY SRI.S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
(R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.27,000/- TO
RS.4,50,000/- BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
30.10.2010 PASSED BY THE MACT-VII, HOSAPETE IN MVC
NO.465/2008 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4798
MFA No. 100965 of 2017
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
2. This appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement
of compensation being aggrieved by judgment and award dated
30.10.2010 passed in MVC No.465/2008 by the learned
Member, MACT-VII, Hosapete (for short, 'Tribunal').
3. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that
on 15.06.2007, when the appellant/claimant was proceeding on
his motorcycle from Vittalapura towards Gulyam, he parked the
same on the extreme left side of the road in order to attend
nature call at Kappagal Cross, Moka Road; at that time, lorry
bearing registration No.KA-34/A-8999 being driven by
respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed to the appellant. Due to which, he sustained grievous
injuries and immediately, he was shifted to VIMS Hospital,
Bellary. It is stated that the claimant/injured was aged 26 years
as on the date of the accident and was working as Shepherd,
earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, he filed claim
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4798
petition seeking total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with
interest.
4. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company
contested the proceedings by filing its statement of objections
and denied the entire claim petition averments. It is averred
that respondent No.1/driver of the offending lorry was not
holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of the
accident. Hence, sought dismissal of the claim petition.
5. During the trial, appellant/claimant examined
himself as PW1 and one doctor examined as PW2 apart from
marking documents as Exs.P1 to P17. The respondent/Insurer
examined one witness as RW1 and marked three documents as
Ex.R1 to R3.
6. The Tribunal on appreciation of the entire material
on record, allowed the claim petition in part awarding a global
compensation of Rs.27,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till date of payment.
7. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Chandrashekhar M
Hosamani for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel
Sri.S.S.Koliwad, for the respondent/insurer.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4798
8. Learned counsel Sri.Chandrashekhar M Hosamani
for the appellant/claimant submits that the Tribunal committed
an error in not taking into account the evidence of PW2 and the
Ex.P9-Wound Certificate. The medical evidence on record
indicates that the appellant has suffered injuries to nerve and
disability of 28%, however, the Tribunal without taking note of
the same, awarded global compensation of Rs.27,000/-, which
is on the lesser side. Hence, he seeks to consider the same and
award appropriate compensation.
9. Per contra, Sri.S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company supporting the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal would submit that the
Tribunal is justified in awarding a sum of Rs.27,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum, as no evidence available on record
to substantiate the disability. Thus, he seeks dismissal of the
appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the material available on record including the
Tribunal records, the only point that would arise for
consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant would be
entitled to enhanced compensation?
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4798
11. Answer to the above point would be in the
'affirmative' for the following reasons:
12. There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the
accident on 15.06.2007 resulting in injuries to the claimant. On
perusal of the evidence of PW2-doctor and medical evidence
available on record, it is evident that the appellant/claimant has
not suffered any fractural injuries and the injury suffered by the
appellant is only cut deep bleeding lacerated wound to 2nd and
3rd finger and left thumb. The evidence on record clearly
indicates that the appellant was inpatient from 15.06.2007 to
3.7.2007. This Court, taking note of the evidence of PW2,
Ex.P9-Wound Certificate, Ex.P10-Discharge Summary and
Ex.P16-Disability Certificate, is of the considered view that it
would be just and appropriate to award additional
compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization, which would meet the
ends of justice.
13. It is noticed that this Court vide order dated
10.8.2021, while condoning the delay of 2232 days in filing the
appeal, made an observation that the appellant/claimant would
not be entitled for interest for the delayed period, in case if he
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4798
succeeds in the appeal. Hence, the claimant would not be
entitled for the interest on the enhanced compensation for the
aforesaid delayed period.
14. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal stands allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified to an extent that the
claimant would be entitled to an additional sum
of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization.
c) The Insurance Company shall deposit the said
amount with accrued interest before the
Tribunal within six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
d) On such deposit, the same shall be released in
favour of the appellant/claimant.
e) Needless to say that the claimant shall not be
entitled to any interest on the enhanced
compensation for the delayed period. Registry
to take note of the same while drawing award.
f) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
