Karnataka High Court
Mohamad Siraj vs Gurushanthaveera Aradhya on 11 November, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
MFA No. 6949 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 1985 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6949 OF 2018
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1985 OF 2018(MV-I)
IN MFA NO.6949/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMAD SIRAJ
S/O. MOHAMED HANIF
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT 4TH MAIN ROAD
GANDINAGARA, TIPTUR TOWN
NOW RESIDING AT
1ST MAIN ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR
TUMKUR - 572 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI K. T. GURUDEV PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by KIRAN
KUMAR R AND:
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka 1. GURUSHANTHAVEERA ARADHYA
S/O. LATE B. VEERAPPA
"RENUKA NILAYA", Y. T. ROAD
TIPUTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR
J. C. ROAD, TUMKUR
BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI S. S. MANUSHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
MFA No. 6949 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 1985 of 2018
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24/11/2017,
PASSED IN MVC NO.508/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.1985/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR
J. C. ROAD, TUMKUR
THROUGH ITS BENGALURU REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.44/45 LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS
BENGLAURU - 560 025
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S. V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMAD SIRAJ
S/O. MOHAMED HANIF
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/AT 4TH MAIN ROAD
GANDINAGARA TIPTUR TOWN
NOW RESIDING AT
1ST MAIN ROAD
SADASHIVANAGAR
TUMKUR
KARNATAKA - 572 101.
2. GURUSHANTHAVEERA ARADHYA
S/O. LATE B. VEERAPPA
MAJOR IN AGE
R/AT RENUKA NILAYA
Y. T. ROAD
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
MFA No. 6949 of 2018
C/W MFA No. 1985 of 2018
TIPUTUR
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. MANUSHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 30/8/2024,
SRI K. T. GURUDEV PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.11.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.508/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT, TUMAKURU,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,42,500/-WITH INTEREST
AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, 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 claimant and insurer are in appeal.
2. The insurer contends that no accident occurred on
30.12.2015 in which it is alleged that the claimant
suffered injuries.
3. The insurer points out that the accident occurred on
30.12.2015 and though it is admitted that the
claimant was accompanied by his brother, the FIR
came to be registered only after nine days and this
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
itself caused a serious doubt about the involvement
of the vehicle that it had insured. The insurer also
points out that in the wound certificate, it has been
recorded that the claimant was brought in with a
history of road traffic accident and was hit by an
unknown vehicle but, subsequently, there is an entry
regarding the vehicle number and this, by itself,
would establish the clear manipulation of the records
so as to foist the liability on the insurer.
4. The claimant, on the other hand, contends that
immediately after the accident, the claimant was
taken to the government hospital, where a wound
certificate has also been issued. It is contended that
since the government doctor has certified regarding
the injuries suffered by the claimant and there is a
clear record about the claimant having been brought
in with the history of a road traffic accident, the
argument that no accident took place cannot be
accepted.
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
5. As far as the occurrence of the accident is
concerned, the wound certificate i.e., Ex.P.4
indicates that the claimant was brought in with a
history of road traffic accident at 8 p.m. on
30.12.2015 and it is also mentioned that he was hit
by an unknown vehicle and thereafter there is an
entry about the vehicle number. Ex.R.2 produced by
insurer is also to the same effect.
6. These two documents establish the fact that the
claimant was in fact taken to the government
hospital immediately after the accident occurred on
30.12.2015. As the insurer contended that the
vehicle that it had insured was implicated, nothing
prevented the insurer from summoning the doctor
who had given the wound certificate and also issued
Ex.R.2 which contained the vehicle number.
7. It is also to be noticed that the owner of the vehicle
did enter appearance through a counsel and did not
dispute the occurrence of the accident and merely
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
stated that the driver of the vehicle was holding a
driving license and that the vehicle had a subsisting
policy as on the date of the accident.
8. In my view, in light of these facts, the argument of
the insurer that the involvement of the vehicle that
has been insured is to be doubted cannot be
accepted.
9. As far as compensation is concerned, the Tribunal
has assessed the disability at 5% to the whole body
and has adopted the notional income of Rs.7,500/-,
in my view, the assessment of disability cannot be
found fault with. However, since the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority has determined the notional
income of Rs.9,000/- for the accident of the year
2015, the said amount will have to be adopted.
Consequently, towards loss of future income, the
claimant would be entitled to Rs.97,200/-
(Rs.9,000/- X 12 X 18 X 5%).
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
10. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and sufferings and Rs.25,000/- towards
loss of amenities. In my view, the said sums are just
and proper and do not require any interference.
Similarly, the sums awarded towards medical
expenses, food nourishment, transportation charges
and future medical expenses and are also correct and
are hence affirmed. The Tribunal has taken the laid
up period as 3 months, since the income is now
taken as Rs.9,000/-, the loss of income during the
laid up period will be Rs.27,000/- (Rs.9,000 X 3
months).
11. Consequently, the award of the Tribunal is modified
and the following sums are awarded as
compensation:
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
As As
awarded awarded
Sl. Compensation
by the by this
No. under different
Tribunal Court
Heads
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Pain and
1. 30,000/- 30,000/-
sufferings
2. Medical expenses 44,000/- 44,000/-
Food and
3. 10,000/- 10,000/-
nourishment
Transportation
4. 10,000/- 10,000/-
charges
Loss of amenities
5. 25,000/- 25,000/-
in life
Loss of future
6. 81,000/- 97,200/-
income
Loss of income
7. during laid up 22,500/- 27,000/-
period
Future Medical
8. 20,000/- 20,000/-
expenses
TOTAL 2,42,500/- 2,63,200/-
10. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to
compensation of Rs.2,63,200/- as against
NC: 2024:KHC:45631
Rs.2,42,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of
petition till its realisation. However, the claimant
would not be entitled to interest for the delayed
period of 159 days on the enhanced compensation.
11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
amount of compensation awarded within two months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
12. Consequently, the appeal of the insurer is dismissed
and the appeal of the claimant is allowed in part.
13. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to
the Tribunal for disbursement.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
GSR
