The High Court dismissed this miscellaneous first appeal filed by an insurance company against a Motor Claims Tribunal award. The court upheld the award of Rs. 2,29,900 towards personal accident compensation, affirming the tribunal's finding of 50% negligence on both the motorcycle rider and the lorry driver.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MFA NO.200712.2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.200712 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B. NO. 53, V.V. SUKHANI COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR GANDHI CHOWK RAICHUR REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S. ASPALLI, ADV.)
AND
MFA NO.200712.2014
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ARUNKUMAR AMARAGUNDAPPA ADV.FOR R1 R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.37/12 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM (ADDITIONAL MACT) AT RAICHUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,29,900/WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The copies of the relevant records are made
available. Accordingly, the lower Court records are dispensed with.
quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal,
MFA NO.200712.2014
3
imposing 50% liability to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent.
the 1st respondent was returning to his home, on his motorcycle, after his work. A mini lorry bearing registration NO.KA-36/604, hit the motorcycle and thereby the 1st respondent suffered the fracture of frontal bone and also nasal bone and other injuries. He was treated in the hospital. He suffered the disability and therefore, the claim petition was filed for compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act.
examined as PW.1 and the doctor was examined as PW.2 and in their evidence, Exs.P1 to P60 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and in their evidence Ex.R1 to R4 were marked.
evidence on record, granted a sum of Rs.2,29,900/-
MFA NO.200712.2014
4
as compensation with interest at 6% per annum, directing the appellant insurance company to pay the same, holding that the driver of the lorry was negligent to the extent of 50%. The appellant is dissatisfied with the finding on negligence, challenged the quantum of compensation. Hence, the present appeal is filed.
sides.
are:
would submit that the complaint was filed against the injured i.e., the 1st respondent and the finding
MFA NO.200712.2014
5
of the tribunal holding that the negligence on the part of the lorry driver to the extent of 50% is erroneous and illegal. He also submits that the quantum of compensation on each of the heads is on the higher side. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent supports the impugned judgment and award of the tribunal.
MFA NO.200712.2014
6
filed against both the persons. Ex.P3 is the copy of the charge sheet. The tribunal has observed that there are sufficient reasons for the negligence on both the persons. The mini lorry is a large vehicle whereas the motorcycle is a smaller vehicle. The responsibility of the lorry as compared with rider of the motorcycle is more. It is in this fact and circumstances, the tribunal has held the negligence to the extent of 50% on both rider and driver of the mini lorry. I do no find any justifiable ground for interference on the said finding.
granted towards pain and suffering. It is relevant to note that the 1st respondent has suffered the fracture of frontal bone and also nasal bone. The injuries and fractures are on sensitive places particularly on the head. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the compensation on this head appears to be not excessive. So far as income is concerned, the accident is of the year 2012 and the tribunal
MFA NO.200712.2014
7
has assessed the same at Rs.6,000/- per month. It
is also reasonable by assessing the permanent disability at 20% on the evidence of PW.2 and the compensation towards loss of income due to disability is just and proper. Though, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the tribunal towards loss of amenities in life, taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered by the injured. I do not find that it is on the higher side. The compensation towards medical expenses, conveyance and other incidental charges also appears to be just and reasonable.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reasons to call for interference in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transferred to the tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE. Srt
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding on negligence attributing 50% liability to the injured and 50% to the driver is just and reasonable?
Whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on the higher side?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Amaragundappa
Umadevi
Ramkrishna
A. Pachhapure
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
