Karnataka High Court
Vittal S/O Adiveppa Arabhavi vs Shivabasappa S/O Samappa Toragal on 7 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4941
MFA No. 102148 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102148 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VITTAL S/O. ADIVEPPA ARABHAVI,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL,
R/O. BANDARALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHIVABASAPPA S/O. SAMAPPA TORAGAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND
AGRICULTURE, AT/PO: SHINDOGI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
(OWNER OF AMBASSADOR CAR
BEARING REG NO. KA-27/M-0527).
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, FIRST FLOOR, APMC YARD,
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T P. B. NO.24, SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
R THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Location: HIGH NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH B. RAJANAL, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C NO.1117/2013
DATED 22/11/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ADDL, MACT SAUNDATTI UNDER ALL PERMISSIBLE HEADS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4941
MFA No. 102148 of 2015
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking for
enhancement of compensation amount being aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 22.11.2014 in MVC
No.1117/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
Additional MACT, Saundatti.
2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are
that the appellant/injured along with another was
proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/L-
955, at that time, Ambassador Car bearing registration
No.KA-27/M-0527 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to motorcycle. Resultantly,
caused accident. Due to the accident, the appellant
sustained grievous injuries. It is averred that the appellant
was hale and healthy and was earning sum of Rs.12,000/-
per month from the agricultural activities and due to the
accident, he is unable to carryout his routine activities.
3. Contesting respondents entered appearance
and filed objections by denying the claim petition
averments. They have denied age, income, avocation and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4941
the accident in question and sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
4. The appellant examined himself as PW1 and
examined Doctor as PW2 and got marked 16 documents
as Exs.P1 to P16. The respondent examined one witness
as RW1. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence
available on record, awarded total compensation of
Rs.4,27,340/- along with interest at the rate of 6%. Being
aggrieved, the appellant/injured has preferred this appeal
seeking for enhancement of the compensation.
5. Heard Smt. Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Shri. Rajesh B. Rajanal
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
6. Smt. Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal
committed grave error in awarding compensation on lower
side on all other heads and has not awarded any
compensation under the head of loss of amenities and she
seeks to allow the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4941
7. Per contra, Shri. Rajesh B. Rajanal, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the
award of compensation by the Tribunal is on higher side.
In fact, the respondent/insurance company ought to have
preferred the appeal challenging the quantum. However,
they have not done. He seeks to dismiss the appeal.
8. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material available on
record, the only point that arises for consideration is
"whether the appellant is entitled for any higher
compensation?"
9. Answer to the above point is in the 'affirmative'
for the following reason.
10. The parties to the proceeding do not dispute
that the accident in question has occurred on 07.08.2012
and the respondent/insurance company is not denying his
liability in the present appeal. The parties to the
proceeding do not dispute the age, income and avocation
of the appellant/injured and also does not dispute that the
award of compensation by the Tribunal on other heads are
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4941
just and proper. The appellant has contended that the
Tribunal committed an error in not awarding any
compensation under the head of loss of amenities.
Admittedly, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries
and undergone treatment in the hospital. Taking note of
the said fact in the evidence available on record, this Court
is of the considered view that it would be just and
appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- under the head of loss
of amenities. This Court on re-appreciation of the evidence
is of the considered view that the award of compensation
by the Tribunal on other heads is unaltered.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, appeal is
partly allowed.
12. The appellant is entitled to Rs.20,000/- under
the head of loss of amenities along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition to till
realization. The respondent/insurance company shall
deposit the said amount with accrued interest before the
Tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4941
certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the same
be paid to the claimant.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKM
