Remanded

Baby Elaina @ Kumari Aiyfath v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2023MFA/1196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for reconsideration of enhanced compensation claims. The Tribunal was directed to examine additional medical bills totaling Rs. 2,14,000, verify disability with a neurosurgeon, and address interest aspects.

What did the court decide?

The award was set aside, case remanded to consider additional medical bills (Rs. 2,14,000), disability assessment by neurosurgeon, and interest aspects.

Baby Elaina @ Kumari Aiyfath Vs New India Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39632 MFA No. 1196 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1196 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BABY ELAINA @ KUMARI AIYFATH FARHANA M.H. AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER ABDUL HAMEED S/O M.H.MOOSA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NEETHAJI BADAMANE, B.M.ROAD, KUSHALNAGARA POST, KUSHALNAGARA KODAGU DISTRICT - 575 002

¶10

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

PRESENTLY R/AT OM NIVAS KADRI MANGALURU - 575 002.

¶12

(BY SRI.GURUPRASAD B R.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD CENTUNARY BUILDING 2^ND FLOOR, GHS ROAD MANGALURU-575 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶16

MR.LOKESH G S/O ANANDA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS GUDDEMANE HOUSE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:39632 MFA No. 1196 of 2017

¶19

ALETTI VILLAGE AND POST SULLIA-574 239

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.O MAHESH FOR R1.,ADVOCATE, NOTICE TO R-2 IS DISPENSED WITH)]

¶22

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.855/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER-M.A.C.T. & II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU, D.K. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.855/2013, dated 26.08.2016 by the

¶26

MACT And II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K.

¶27

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation

¶28

of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and the Tribunal has

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39632 MFA No. 1196 of 2017

¶30

awarded an amount of Rs.5,12,000/-. It is the case of the claimant that on 17.04.2013, the claimant along with the relative was walking on the extreme side of the mud portion of the road in order to go to Sulia town. At that time a motorcycle ridden by its rider in a high speed, rash and negligent manner came from opposite side and dashed against the claimant. As a result the claimant sustained grievous injuries. According to the claimant they have spent an amount of Rs.2,14,566/- towards medicines and because of the injuries sustained by the claimant, he

¶31

had sustained disability. Further, it is their case that they require further amount towards future surgery. Before this Court they filed an application under Order-LXI, Rule-27 of CPC to file additional evidence, i.e., medical receipts for an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though they filed medical bills for an amount of Rs.2,14,500/-, court below had considered only Rs.1,65,000/-. Further, though they have examined the Doctor but since the said Doctor is not a Neurosurgeon the court below had disbelieved the evidence.

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39632 MFA No. 1196 of 2017

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance

¶34

company submits that since the claimants have filed additional evidence, the matter has to be remanded back to the MACT. In response to the same, learned counsel for the appellant submits that they will examine the Doctor in support of the medical bills by way of additional evidence.

¶35

He submits that in respect of the bills of an amount of Rs.2,14,000/- only Rs.1,65,000/- was granted. In that regard also he will adduce necessary evidence and the court below shall examine the same. He submits that the court below may be directed to reconsider the earlier bills as the court had granted only an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-, when he has placed the bills for an amount of Rs2,14,000/-. Further he submits that he shall also examine the Neurosurgeon in respect of the disability sustained by the claimant.

¶36

Considering all these issues, the appeal is

¶37

Allowed by setting aside the award dated 26.08.2016, in

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:39632 MFA No. 1196 of 2017

¶40

MVC No.855/2013, passed by the MACT And II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mangaluru, D.K. and the case is Remanded Back and the court below shall consider the following issues:

¶41

i) The court below shall consider the additional evidence filed under Order-LXI, Rule27 of CPC before this court and both the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence in that regard,

¶42

ii) With regard to the medical bills for an amount of Rs.2,14,000/wherein only Rs.1,65,000/- is granted on, that issue also the court below shall reconsider basing on the evidence,

¶43

iii) With regard to the disability suffered by the claimant, he is at liberty to examine the Neurosurgeon and the respondent - insurance company is at liberty to cross-examine the witness.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:39632 MFA No. 1196 of 2017

¶46

iv) The interest aspect also the court

¶47

below shall reconsider.

¶48

v) Without further Notice both the

¶49

parties shall appear before the MACT on 21.11.2023 and the court below shall decide the case within a period of Three Months from 21.11.2023.

¶50

vi) If the parties fail to cooperate with the matter, the court below without giving any opportunity shall pass appropriate orders basing on the material on record.

¶51

vii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court and also along with the application filed under Order-LXI, Rule-27 of CPC, forthwith without any delay.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:39632 MFA No. 1196 of 2017

¶54

viii) No costs.

¶55

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶56

closed.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103

Baby Elaina @ Kumari Aiyfath v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Elaina @ Kumari Aiyfath v. New India Insurance Co. 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

Krishni Poojarthi Vs Santosh Kumar Singh

Sri Shiva Kumar S Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

The Manager Vs M L Raghu

Sudha Vs v Kumara

Smt Parvathamma Vs Sri Ranganatha

Nagaraj K G Vs Shivakumar a