Partly allowed

Shrinivas S/O Gaopalrao v. Shidramappa S/O Virappa, Kadlimatti

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2022MFA/21062/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by a motor accident claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The court deemed the Tribunal's award inadequate and granted additional compensation alongside the original amount with interest.

What did the court decide?

The court awarded an additional Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant along with the existing award, totaling Rs. 45,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Shrinivas S/O Gaopalrao Vs Shidramappa S/O Virappa… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 21062 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21062 OF 2010 (MV-SJ)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRINIVAS S/O GAOPALRAO CHABBI AGE 51 YEARS, OCC:AGRIL. R/O BAGALKOT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI RAKESH S. HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SHIDRAMAPPA S/O VIRAPPA, KADLIMATTI AGE MAJOR, OCC:OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA 29/6976, R/O KAMATAGI, TQ:HUNGAUND, DIST:BAGALKOT.

¶13

HANAMAPPA S/O DUNDAPPA BASAKALLI AGE MAJOR, OCC:DRIVER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KA29/6976, R/O INGALAGI, TQ:HUNGUND DIST:BAGALKOT.

¶14

Digitally signed by JAGADISH T R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD Date: 2022.07.21 10:42:12 +0530

¶15

I.C.I.CI. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBLI.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P. N. HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING THIS COURT TO ADMIT THE APPEAL AND CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.V.C.NO.388/2007 ON THE FILE OF M.A.C.T. NO.II, BAGALKOT AND BE PLEASED TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.12.2009 AND ENHANCE THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ALONG WITH INTEREST AS CLAIMED BEFORE THE M.A.C.T. BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

¶18

MFA No. 21062 of 2010

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is at the instance of the claimant, who is seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 15.12.2009 in MVC No.388/2007 by the learned MACT No.II, Bagalkot (for short ‘MACT’).

¶22

Brief facts are that claimant was the owner of a farmhouse for tethering cattle and also storing agricultural equipments in the land bearing Sy.No.55/2 situated at Chabbi village in Bagalkot Taluk. On 02.07.2006 at about 3 a.m., offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-29/6976 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came and dashed to the said farmhouse resulting in part of the farmhouse collapsing and causing loss to the claimant.

¶23

His claim petition was resisted by the owner

¶24

and the Insurance Company and the driver remained ex-

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 21062 of 2010

¶27

parte . Both the owner and the Insurance Company filed their respective written statements denying material averments in the claim petition.

¶28

During trial, claimant examined himself as PW1 and he examined one Surveyor and Chartered Engineer and Government Registered Valuer for the Income Tax as PW2. EX.P.1 to P24 were marked. Insurance Company examined the owner of the offending lorry as RW1. No exhibits were marked for the respondent.

¶29

Learned MACT after hearing leaned counsel on both sides and perusing the records allowed claim petition in part, awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment and the Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation.

¶30

In this appeal learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the insured vehicle, farmhouse of the claimant was damaged to a significant extent causing him

¶31

¶32

MFA No. 21062 of 2010

¶33

loss to the extent of rupees more than three lakhs. He submitted that the claimant has examined himself as PW1 and he examined a Chartered Engineer as PW2 to prove

¶34

the extent of loss caused to him to the tune of Rs.3,19,000/- and in respect of the same the learned MACT has awarded only Rs.20,000/- and therefore, the compensation awarded is required to be enhanced.

¶35

Sri S. K. Kayakmath, learned counsel appearing

¶36

for the Insurance Company, per contra, submits that the learned Tribunal, after consideration of the entire evidence placed before it, has awarded a just compensation of Rs.20,000/- and absolutely no material available on record and therefore appeal is required to be dismissed.

¶37

The Insurance Company or the owner of Insured vehicle have not filed any appeal against the impugned judgment and award and therefore the factum of occurrence of the accident due to negligence of the driver of he offending truck resulting in damages to the farmhouse of the claimant is not in dispute.

¶38

¶39

MFA No. 21062 of 2010

¶40

It is the case of the claimant that he suffered

¶41

loss to the extent of Rs.3,19,000/- on account of the collapse of the part of the farmhouse and therefore, he is entitled to the compensation in a sum of Rs.3,19,000/with interest thereon. In this behalf he examined himself as PW1 and he also examined PW2-Registered Chartered Engineer and valuer for Income Tax. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of evidence of PW1 and PW2 and perusing the documents produced viz., Ex.P.14-Blue Print of Building, Ex.P21-estimate letter, Ex.P22-estimate and Ex.P24-CD and four photos, has awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It was not convinced by the evidence of PW2 regarding the extent of damage caused to the farmhouse and the extent of financial loss suffered by the claimant to restore the farmhouse to the same condition in which it was before the accident. Learned MACT particularly referred to the fact that PW2 has not produced any Survey Report. It is relevant to notice that PW2 had not inspected the building

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 21062 of 2010

¶44

in the presence of representative of Insurance Company and therefore the survey report regarding the extent of damage caused to the building and his evidence regarding damages suffered by the claimant lacks credibility. However, it is required to be noticed that Ex.P24 is 4 photographs of the damaged building and the CD is also produced. When this material was produced before the learned Tribunal, PW.2 was subjected to cross-

¶45

examination.

¶46

It is apparent that the farmhouse was constructed by using equal extent of mud and bricks. The structure appears to be rectangular in shape and one portion of the wall has been completely damaged to the entire length. Taking reasonable view of the matter, it is apparent that the compensation award at Rs.20,000/- for restoring the said wall and also for restoring roof, which has also collapsed is on the lower side and another Rs.25,000/- is required to be awarded, which would be a just compensation. Accordingly, I award Rs.25,000/- to

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 21062 of 2010

¶49

the appellant-claimant in addition to Rs.20,000/-, which

¶50

has already been awarded by the learned Tribunal.

¶51

The enhanced compensation shall carry interest

¶52

at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶53

The enhanced compensation along with interest shall be deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶54

Registry to transmit the records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith.

¶55

In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

SSP

Shrinivas S/O Gaopalrao v. Shidramappa S/O Virappa, Kadlimatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrinivas S/O Gaopalrao v. Shidramappa S/O Virappa, Kadlimatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonam Pandey Vs the Registrar

Shri Shafi S/O. Ibrahim Sab Vs Shri K M Marulsiddayya S/O. Basayya

The Divisional Manager Vs Shri. Shafi S/O Ibrahim Sab

K. Subrahmanya Hegde S/O Subba Hegde Vs Irappa Maddiyavar S/O Mallikarjun

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe (Regd) Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sri. Ravindra S/O Panduranga Ankolekar