Partly allowed

Sri Hanumantappa v. Sri Abdul Munaf

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2013MFA/20802/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a first appeal filed by a minor injured in a road accident to enhance compensation, directing an additional sum of Rs.30,000 for loss of amenities to carry interest from the date of the claim petition.

What did the court decide?

Awarded additional Rs.30,000 towards loss of amenities with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation.

Sri Hanumantappa Vs Sri Abdul Munaf — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JANUARY 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20802/2010(MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Sri. HANUMANTAPPA S/O SANGAPA JANGNNAVAR AGE 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O KUNABEVU, TQ. RANEBENNUR.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri. DINESH M. KULKARNI, Adv.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. ABDUL MUNAF, S/O ISMAILSAB AGE MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY R/O NOORANI KASIO, AZADNAGAR 1^ST CROSS, SHIMOGA.

¶12

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., B.H. ROAD, SHIMOGA REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

(By SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV. FOR R2. NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V.O. DATED 20/07/2012)

¶15

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21/07/2009 PASSED IN MVC NO.260/2004 ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶16

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Though this appeal is posted for admission, with the consent of counsel for both sides, it is heard finally.

¶20

The injured claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and award passed in MVC No.260/2004 dated 21/07/2009 by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Ranebennur.

¶21

It is no longer in dispute that the appellant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 30/12/2000 involving lorry bearing registration No.CTV 9786. In the claim petition filed by the appellant, compensation of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed this appeal.

¶22

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶24

appellant and the learned counsel for the respondentinsurance company and perused the material on record.

¶25

It is noted that the claimant was aged 13 years at the time of the accident. He sustained comminuted fracture of left tibia and mid shaft fracture of fibula. PW-2 Doctor was examined. He has given certificate showing that there is 40% total permanent disability. However, the Tribunal has noted that despite the said disability, the claimant has continued his education and completed his second year PUC in the year 2003 and he has also been doing agricultural work. Under the circumstance, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. But no amount has been awarded towards disability or towards loss of amenities.

¶26

Having regard to the fact that injured has been

¶27

pursuing his studies despite disability but keeping in mind the nature of injuries i.e. comminuted fracture of left tibia

¶28

¶29

and mid shaft fracture of fibula and the age of the claimant at the time of the accident, I am of the view that additional sum of Rs.30,000/- must be awarded towards loss of amenities. The additional sum shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.

¶30

The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms.

¶31

SD/-
JUDGE
kmv

Sri Hanumantappa v. Sri Abdul Munaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hanumantappa v. Sri Abdul Munaf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller,Nekrtc, Vs Moulasab S/O. Honnursab Hosakeri and Others

Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shri. Basappa S/O Bhimappa Jagadale @ Talawar

Jaibunbegum W/O. Davalsab Malekoppa Vs the Divisional Controller

The Divisional Manager Vs Neelawwa W/O Laxman Ganiger

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Revappa S/O Satyappa Tolake

Divisional Manager Vs Kashavva Shivaji Dhabale