Karnataka High Court
Sri Narayana Shettigar vs Sri. Arun Kumar Hegde on 6 November, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44697
MFA No. 3685 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 68 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MFA NO.3685 OF 2018 C/W
MFA CROB. NO.68 OF 2020 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 3685/2018
BETWEEN:
UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
CITY TRADER CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR, OPP: CITY
HOSPITAL, MANGALORE - 575003.
HEREIN REP. BY CLAIMS EXECUTIVE (LEGAL)
KLS TOWER, PLOT NO.EL94, T.T.C.
INDUSTRIAL AREA, MIDC
MAHAPA NAVI MUMBAI - 400 710 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADV.)
AND:
1. NARAYANA SHETTIGAR
Digitally signed S/O. RAMA SHETTINAGAR
by KIRAN
KUMAR R NOW AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
Location: High
Court of R/O. MELKATTKERE
Karnataka KONI POST & VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 113
2. ARUN KUMAR HEGDE
S/O. LATE. MONAPPA HEGDE
NOW AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O NEAR GUDDATTU
SRI. VINAYAKA TEMPLE
YADTHADI VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576 235
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44697
MFA No. 3685 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 68 of 2020
(BY SRI.NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2018
PASSED IN MVC NO.1234/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI,
(SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,84,310/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
ON RS.4,59,310/- (EXCLUDING INTEREST ON FUTURE
MEDICAL EXPENSES OF RS.25,000/-) FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
IN MFA.CROB NO. 68/2020
BETWEEN:
SRI NARAYANA SHETTIGAR
S/O RAMA SHETTIGAR
AGEDA BOUT 49 YEARS
R/O MELKATTKERE
KONI POST AND VILLAGE
KUNDAPURA TALUK
UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 ...CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI. ARUN KUMAR HEGDE
S/O LATE MONAPPA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT NEAR GUDDATTU
SRI VINAYAKA TEMPLE
YADTHADI VILLAGE
UDUPI TALUK
UDUPI DIST-576 201
2. UNIVERSAL SAMPO GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRNCH OFFICE
CITY TRADE CENTRE, 1ST FLOOR
OPP. CITY HOSPITAL
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44697
MFA No. 3685 of 2018
C/W MFA.CROB No. 68 of 2020
MANGALORE-575 003
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANGER ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED 27.09.2022)
THIS MFA CROB IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22
READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.01.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1234/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT
KUNDAPURA), KUNDAPURA PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA AND MFA CROB. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The insurer has filed this appeal contending that a
sum of Rs.4,84,310/- awarded for the injuries
suffered by the claimant is exorbitant.
2. The claimant has also preferred cross-objection
contending that notional income assessed by the
Tribunal was on the lower side and the compensation
awarded was inadequate.
NC: 2024:KHC:44697
3. It is the case of the insurer that the Tribunal ought
not to have assessed the disability at 19% per
annum, and the award of Rs.54,000/- towards 'bed
rest' and Rs.1,500/- towards 'loss of earning during
treatment' was incorrect.
4. The cross-objector, on the other hand, contends that
the income ought to have been taken at Rs.9,500/-
even as per the determination of the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority and no sum has been
awarded under the head 'loss of amenities, despite
the claimant having suffered 19% disability to the
whole body.
5. In my view, if the contentions of the insurer as well
as that of the claimants are accepted, ultimately, the
amount of compensation awarded would more or less
be similar to what has now been awarded by the
Tribunal. Since the contentions advanced by the
claimant and the insurer basically amounts to re-
fixation of the compensation and would ultimately
NC: 2024:KHC:44697
yield a similar amount, in my view, there is no
justification to entertain either the appeal or the
cross-objection. Consequently, both of them are
dismissed.
6. The amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
HNM
