Karnataka High Court
Sri Subramanyam C vs Sri Reddappa Dommalapatti on 19 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:46827
MFA No. 3750 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3750 OF 2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUBRAMANYAM C.,
S/O C. THIMMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT BALENDRAPALLI VILLAGE,
VENKATAGIRIKOTA MANDAL,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
ERRINAGEPALLI VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
AASEEFA PARVEEN 1. SRI. REDDAPPA DOMMALAPATTI,
Location: HIGH S/O D. VENKATAPPA NAID,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT DANDUPALYAM VILLAGE,
BHEEMAGANAPALLI PLSY,
PUNGANUR MANDALAM,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH-517247.
2. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
N.S.C.B. ROAD, NEAR SOORAJMUL CIRCLE,
ROBERTSONPET, K.G.F.-563113.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:46827
MFA No. 3750 of 2022
(BY SRI. Y.K. SHESHAGIRI RAO,ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 17.09.2024)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.02.2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.142/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KFG AND MEMBER, MACT, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Vishwantha K., learned counsel for appellant as
well as Sri.Y.K.Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
2. This appeal is the outcome of the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, K.G.F., in MVC
No.142/2016 dated 24.02.2022. This is a claimant's appeal.
3. The short point involved in this appeal is with
regard to payment of interest. The Tribunal expressing its
opinion that the appellant is entitled to a sum of
Rs.05,14,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum, denied interest on the ground that the
NC: 2024:KHC:46827
appellant prolonged the litigation for more than five years.
Learned counsel for the appellant states that respondent No.2
took sufficient time for filing his written statement, thereafter
to cross examine the witnesses and later to produce his
evidence. But the Tribunal has thrown entire blame on the
appellant and denied interest for the total period. Learned
counsel thereby seeks the intervention of this Court.
4. Sri.Y.K.Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 seeks the Court to dispose of the matter on
merits.
5. When the petition claiming compensation was filed
in the year 2016, the case was disposed of by the Tribunal in
the year 2022. However, by the material available on record it
is clear that after filing of the claim petition, notices to both the
respondents were sent and thereafter respondent
No.2/insurance company filed its statement of objections. Later
issues were framed and thereafter trial proceedings were held.
The appellant examined PWs.1 and 2 on his side and got
marked Exs.P1 to P14. Respondent No.2 examined RW.1 on its
side and got marked Exs.R1. How much time was spent by the
Court for service of notices upon the respondents, the time the
NC: 2024:KHC:46827
Court took for framing of issues, the time which respondent
No.2 took for cross-examining the appellant's witnesses and
the time which respondent No.2 spent in producing its evidence
is not made clear at any portion of the impugned order.
Therefore, as rightly contended by learned counsel for
appellant, denial of interest for the entire period of five years is
unjustifiable.
6. The Tribunal, in case was of the opinion that the
appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the matter, would
have denied interest for the period of delay which was caused
by the appellant during the course of proceedings. However,
without doing so, denial of interest for the entire period is
unjustifiable. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
respondent No.2 should be directed to pay interest on the
awarded amount from the date of petition till the date of
deposit.
7. Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
NC: 2024:KHC:46827
ii) The compensation that is granted by the Tribunal shall
be paid by respondent No.2 to the appellant with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit.
iii) In case the award has been satisfied, the amount
payable as interest shall be deposited before the concerned
Tribunal by respondent No.2 within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iv) On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw
the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
