Partly allowed

Dajiba S/O Pandurang Savant v. Raghavendra S/O Mahadevappa Ankalagi and Anr.

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2023MFA/200115/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed two miscellaneous first appeals filed against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court enhanced compensation for the injured claimant from Rs.3,74,000 to Rs.4,34,000. It rejected the insurer's appeal to set aside liability.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.4,34,000 including interest; insurer directed to deposit amount within six weeks.

Dajiba S/O Pandurang Savant Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶8

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200115 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶9

C/W

¶10

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201943 OF 2016 (MV-I)

¶11

MFA NO.200115/2017: BETWEEN:

¶12

DAJIBA S/O PANDURANG SAVANT AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VASAPETH JADHAV NAGAR, TQ. JATH DIST. SANGLI NOW RESIDING AT JALAGERI TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

RAGHAVENDRA S/O MAHADEVAPPA ANKALAGI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE & AGRIL AT/POST J. BABALAD TQ.JATH DIST.SANGLI-416402

¶18

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD SANGAM BUILDING S. S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYASHETTY , ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED)

¶20

¶21

MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 1.9.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT XII AT VIJAYAPURA. IN M.V.C.NO.254/2013, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION.

¶23

MFA NO.201943/2016:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., SANGAM BUILDING, S. S. FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SRI DAJIBA S/O PANDURANG SAVANT AGE:54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O VASAPETH, JADHAV NAGAR, TQ.JATH, DIST.SANGLI-586104, NOW R/AT JALAGERI, TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPUR.

¶30

RAGHAVENDRA S/O MAHADEVAPPA ANKALAGI AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE & AGRICULTURE, R/O AT POST J BABALAD, TQ.JATH, DIST.JATH, DIST.SANGALI-416404

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI SANJEEV KUMAR C. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶33

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.09.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT-XII VIJAYAPURA BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

¶34

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

3 - MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Though these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of both counsel, they are taken up for final disposal.

¶38

These appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 01.09.2016 passed in MVC No.254/2013 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Vijayapura (for short ‘Tribunal’).

¶39

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

¶40

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

¶41

The learned counsel for the claimant contended that having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal ought to have awarded adequate compensation.

¶42

Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer

¶43

submits that the jurisdictional police have received the information about the accident from Gaurav Hospital on

¶44

4 - MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶45

30/11/2012, the FIR was delayed registered after 12 days i.e. on 12/12/2012. The spot Mahazar was conducted on 01/12/2012 without registering the FIR. That the petitioner had admitted in the hospital, the history of assault, but not the accident. The Tribunal mistook this point and over looked Ex.P9 and wrongly appreciated on record and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶46

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the

¶47

following points that arise for consideration are;

¶48

(a) Whether the appellant in MFA No.200115/2017 is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶49

(b) Whether the appellant in MFA No.201943/2016 has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the tribunal as to the liability of the Insurance Company?

¶50

¶51

My answers to the above points are;

¶52

(a) Point No.1: Partly affirmative.

¶53

(b) Point No.2: In the negative.

¶54

¶55

¶56

MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶57

With regard to the enhancement of compensation is concerned, the petitioner has produced Ex.P7 the discharge card and wound certificate at Ex.P9 which reveals that petitioner had sustained fracture of union of deformity with lower end fracture of upper end, right tibia grade-IIC, # lower pole of right patella and other injuries. The x-ray report also reveals the similar facts. According to doctor, these injuries are grievous in nature.

¶58

The petitioner also examined one Dr.Gurunath Kulkarni, through the Court Commissioner who has been examined as PW.2 and examined the injured on 26.03.2015, wherein he has stated there is a fracture of right tibia, proximal 1/3^rd with non union with rapture of patellar tendon. Disability noted that mobility component, loss of knee function 50 x 3 = 15%.

¶59

The tribunal has assessed the disability at 15% to the whole body which is just and proper. However, the tribunal has taken the notional income of the injured petitioner at Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.6,500/- as as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner is aged about 39 years at the time of the accident

¶60

6 - MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶61

and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘11’. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,28,700/(Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 11 x 15%) on account of 'loss of future income'. Accordingly, the same is rounded off to Rs.1,29,000/-.

¶62

Considering the nature of injuries, period of

¶63

treatment, disability and medical expenses, I am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be re-determined and re-calculated as

¶64

under:-

¶65

Sl. No	Heads	Awarded by the Tribunal	Enhanced by this Court
1	Towards pain and suffering	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.30,000/-
2	Medical expenses incurred and future medical expenses, attendant, conveyance, nourishing food, and other incidental charges (Rs.2,10,000 + Rs.20,000)	Rs.2,30,000/-	Rs.2,30,000/-
3	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.20,000/-
4	Loss of future income of permanent disability	Rs.99,000/-	Rs.1,29,000/-
5	Loss of amenities, Life comforts and expectancy of life	Rs.15,000/-	Rs.25,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,74,000/-	Rs.4,34,000/-

¶66

Thus, the petitioner in MFA No.200115/2017 is

¶67

entitled compensation in a sum of Rs.4,34,000/- as against Rs.3,74,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Accordingly, I answered point No.1 in partly Affirmative.

¶68

¶69

MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶70

In MFA No.201943/2016:

¶71

With regard to liability is concerned, the wound certificate/Ex.P9 does not disclose that the injured admitted to the Hospital with the history of assault as argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of insurance company. Hence, in this regard, arguments advanced by the insurance company cannot be accepted. Ex.P9 clearly reveals that this wound certificate/medico legal certificate issued by medical officer. Mere non mentioning of the number is not a ground to reject the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence on record including the delay in filing the FIR.

¶72

Keeping in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the appellant/insurance company in MFA No.201943/2016 have not made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award as to the liability of the insurance company. Hence, I answered point No.2 in Negative.

¶73

8 - MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶74

For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the

¶75

following:

¶76

ORDER

¶77

i) MFA No.200115/2017 filed by the

¶78

petitioner/claimant is allowed in part.

¶79

ii) MFA No.201943/2016 filed by the insurance company is dismissed.

¶80

iii) The appellant/claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.4,34,000/- as against Rs.3,74,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

¶81

iv) Respondent/Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

¶82

v) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the Tribunal shall stand intact.

¶83

9 - MFA No. 200115 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 201943 of 2016

¶84

vi) The amount in deposit, if any, by the insurance company shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal, along with TCR and a copy of this order.

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

¶86

MSR/SDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Dajiba S/O Pandurang Savant v. Raghavendra S/O Mahadevappa Ankalagi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dajiba S/O Pandurang Savant v. Raghavendra S/O Mahadevappa Ankalagi and Anr.

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

Sri Yerrama Reddy Vs K N Venkatarama Reddy

Universal Sampo Gen Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Lalsab S/O Nabisab Pinjar and Ors.

Syed Azmath Ali S/O Syed Inayath Ali Vs Gangamma Anr.

Mohammed Saleem S/O Khaja Hussain Vs Sri Srinivas S/O Venkatram Rao and Ors.

Smt. Laxmi W/O Late Jagannath and Ors. Vs Sri Srinivas S/O Venkatram Rao and Ors.

Rajkumar S/O Mallikarjun Chillarge Vs Rajkumar S/O Maruthi and Anr.