Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sri.Fakirappa Gangappa Yammi

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023MFA/100144/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the insurance company's First Appeal against a compensation award for a motor accident. The Court held that the delay in lodging the complaint was excusable given medical exigencies and upheld the tribunal's assessment of compensation as just and proper despite minor discrepancies in disability calculation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the insurance company was dismissed, confirming the judgment and award dated 26.08.2015. No order as to costs.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri.Fakirappa Gangappa… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11947 MFA No. 100144 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100144/2016 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, II FLOOR, MADIWALE ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, NOW REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI S. K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI FAKIRAPPA GANGAPPA YAMMI, AGE:34 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS IN SCRAP, R/O:PARISHWAD, TQ:KHANAPUR, DIST:BEALGAVI.

¶14

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M

¶15

SRI MAKATUMSAB HUSENSAB HALIMNAVAR, AGE:MAJOR,

¶16

R/O:H.NO.4, PATIL CHAWL, SHASTRI NAGAR, KANGRALI B.K., TALUK AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, PRAYING CALL THE RECORDS, HEAR THE PARTIES, AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2015 PASSED BY HE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL MACT, BAILHONGAL, IN MVC NO.690/2013, WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11947 MFA No. 100144 of 2016

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.08.2015, passed by the tribunal, in MVC No.690/2013, questioning the factum of accident itself.

¶25

Brief facts of the case. It is the case of claimant

¶26

that on 18.08.2012, the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle and while proceeding so on the left side of the road at moderate speed, the jeep No.KA-23/P-8118 coming from opposite direction dashed the motorcycle of the claimant. Therefore, the claimant sustained comminuted fracture of right tibia and fibula and valve chip fracture of distal radius (wrist). Thus, filed a claim petition under section 166 of the M.V.Act and the tribunal

¶27

awarded compensation under various heads as under:

¶28

Sl.	Heads.	Amount in
No.		(Rs.)
1.	Pain and suffering.	80,000

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11947 MFA No. 100144 of 2016

¶30

2.	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness.	25,000
3.	Medical expenses incurred.	60,000
4.	Incidental expenses.	25,000
5.	Loss of income during laid up and rest period.	28,000
6.	Loss of future income.	1,47,840
7.	Future medical expenses.	25,000
	Total:	3,90,840

¶31

Heard the arguments and perused the material

¶32

placed before the Court.

¶33

The learned counsel for appellant insurance

¶34

company submitted that there is a delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint and there is no physical damage found on the motorcycle. Therefore disputed the factum of accident itself. In the accident the claimant while riding the motorcycle sustained injuries as hit by jeep and suffered fracture to the tibia and fibula of right leg and fracture to the wrist. The claimant was hospitalized as inpatient. Therefore quite naturally there was some delay in lodging the complaint. Immediately after the accident the paramount thing to be considered is providing medical

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11947 MFA No. 100144 of 2016

¶36

treatment to the claimant rather prompt lodging of complaint before the police. Under these circumstances there might be delay in lodging the complaint but that is sufficiently explained by the claimant. Therefore, the aspect of delay can be considered on facts and circumstance of each case as per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others, reported in (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693 . Therefore considering the delay occurred in lodging the complaint, it is not fatal to the case of claimant so as to disbelieve the claim petition.

¶37

The motorcycle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector after 16 days from the date of accident. Quite naturally, within this interregnum period, the motorcycle might have been repaired. But upon considering the police records, viz., complaint, FIR, spot panchanama, charge sheet, it is proved that the accident is between the motorcycle and jeep and the driver of jeep was charge sheeted. Therefore, on this ground as

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11947 MFA No. 100144 of 2016

¶39

canvassed by the learned counsel for insurance company, the accident cannot be doubted. Therefore, regarding factum of accident, the doubts raised by the insurance company are not sustainable. Hence on this ground the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Considering the quantum of compensation

¶41

awarded as stated above and considering the nature of injuries sustained and disability suffered, the assessment of quantum of compensation is found to be just and proper. Even though the compensation under the head injuries, pain and suffering is slightly on higher side, but so far as other heads are concerned are found to be just and proper. The doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered 30% of disability towards right lower limb and 15% in respect of right upper limb. But the tribunal has taken only 11% as functional disability towards whole body, which is found to be on lesser side. But the claimant has not preferred appeal, perhaps, even satisfied with the

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11947 MFA No. 100144 of 2016

¶43

said factor. Therefore considering the nature of injuries sustained, the disability held by the tribunal is lesser side and this has taken care of the compensation awarded under the head injuries, pain and suffering. Therefore by considering the overall facts and circumstances, the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper, which needs no interference. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed confirming

¶45

the judgment and award dated 26.08.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bailhongal, in MVC No.690/2013.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

MRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36 CT-ASC

¶48

SD/JUDGE

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sri.Fakirappa Gangappa Yammi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Sri.Fakirappa Gangappa Yammi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager Vs Vagish Basangauda Patil

The Manager Vs Maruti M/O Renuka Madar

The Divisional Manager, Vs Chetankumar @ Annappa

Ravindra Shankar Kudachi Vs Basavaraj Fakirappa Morabad

Sri Raghavendra Venkatesh Burli Vs Mr Shekarayya Ningayya Tawargeri

Sri Raghavendra Venkatesh Burli Vs Mr Hanamantha Mulchand Garag