Allowed

Mr. B.K.Ashraf v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2022MFA/2072/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Finding the quantum meager and viewing the subsequent submission of additional medical bills requiring fresh consideration, the court set aside the impugned award and remanded the matter to the Tribunal afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and award set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh disposal within six months.

Mr. B.K.Ashraf Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

M.F.A.NO.2072/2017 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. B.K.ASHRAF S/O LATE AHAMED BEARY AGED 33 YEARS R/AT BOLANTHUR POST KALPANE, HIDAYATH MANZIL BANTWAL TALUK PRESENTLY R/AT ZUM ZUM MANZIL KATIPALLA, MANGALURU … APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

1 . ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., LOCAL OFFICE: MAXIMU BUILDING 3^RD FLOOR, NALAPAD RESIDENCY LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD MANGALURU-575 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶11

2 . VENKATARAMANA NAYAK

¶12

S/O VASUDEVA NAYAK

¶13

AGED 56 YEARS R/AT D.NO.12-15 NEETHINAGAR ROAD

¶14

¶15

NEAR ADHISHAKTHI BHAJANA MANDIR PADAV, SHAKTHINAGAR MANGALURU-575 005

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI A.N.KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2018)

¶18

THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.253/16 ON THE FILE OF THE 6^TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & MACT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Insurance Company.

¶23

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 03.09.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.253/2016 on the

¶24

file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge & MACT, D.K.,

¶25

¶26

Mangaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short), questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶27

The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking permission to produce the additional medical bills on the ground that the claimant subsequent to the award admitted to the Hospital and subjected to surgery and the bills to the tune of Rs.2,13,021/- is claimed. When the original documents are placed before the Court with regard to the treatment as an inpatient as well as the implants are purchased and other bills are also produced in this regard, the matter requires to be re-considered by the Tribunal.

¶29

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Insurance Company would submit that the veracity and authenticity of the documents has to be verified by the Insurance Company.

¶30

¶31

In view of the submissions made by both the

¶32

counsel, the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. It is the contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager. In view of production of additional documents, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter afresh after considering the additional documents.

¶33

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶34

following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The appeal is allowed.

¶37

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2016, passed in M.V.C.No.253/2016, is hereby set aside.

¶38

(iii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh.

¶39

(iv) This is the matter of the year 2017. Hence, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within six months from today.

¶40

¶41

(v) The parties and the respective counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.12.2022 without expecting any separate notice from the Tribunal.

¶42

(vi) Both the parties and the respective counsel are directed to assist the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within the stipulated period of six months from today.

¶43

(vii) The Registry is directed to transmit the application – I.A.No.1/2022 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC along with the original documents to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith to enable the Tribunal to take up the matter on 16.12.2022.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

cp*

Mr. B.K.Ashraf v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. B.K.Ashraf v. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Vimala @ Hemalatha Vs M.M.J.Somashekharappa

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. M. Sulochana

Legal Manager Vs Bherulal

The Managing Director Vs B. Prabhuswamy @ Prabhu

The Divisional Controller Vs Puttaswamy

Cholamandalam M S General Insurance Company Vs Annapoornamma