Partly allowed

Suresh v. Mr. Raju and Anr.

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2024MFA/200988/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal against a motor accident tribunal award, the High Court of Karnataka held that the original compensation of Rs.75,000 was insufficient. The court modified the award to grant a total global compensation of Rs.2,00,000 to the appellant-claimant and directed the respondent-insurance company to deposit this amount before the tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; global compensation enhanced to Rs.2,00,000 with interest; insurance company directed to deposit amount.

Suresh Vs Mr. Raju and Anr. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:4835-DB MFA No. 200988 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200988 OF 2022 (MV-I)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SURESH S/O TAVARAPPA RATHOD AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O HULLUR TANDA, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL, DISTRICT: VIJAYAPUR.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. S.D.SAGARI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

MR. RAJU S/O SHANKARAPPA RATHOD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO.1611/51, Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA ORDA VOILO WADDO SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON CANDOLIM BARDEZ Location: HIGH NORTH GOA – 403 516. COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REG. OFFICE. PENINSULA CORPORATE PARK, PIRAMAL TOWER, 9^TH FLOOR, GANAPATRAO MARG, LOWER PAREL MUMBAI – 400 013. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:4835-DB MFA No. 200988 of 2022

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN M.V.C NO.946/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT-VII, VIJAYAPUR AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.08.2020 BY ALLOWING THE APPAL AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY RAJESH RAI K J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.08.2020 passed by the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VII at Vijayapura in MVC No.946/2017, wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and granted total compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of compensation amount.

¶22

The facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that on 28.05.2017 the claimant/petitioner and his friend were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.GA-03/AD-3503 from Geddalmari village towards Muddebihal. The petitioner was a pillion rider on the said vehicle. Due to rash and negligent riding of the said

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:4835-DB MFA No. 200988 of 2022

¶24

motorcycle near Handargal cross, the motorcycle dashed to another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-28/EH7256 which came from opposite direction. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, admitted to hospital for treatment. Subsequently, the jurisdictional police registered the FIR and charge sheet against the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.GA-03/AD-3503. As such, the petitioner filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

¶25

After service of notice, the respondents

¶26

appeared before the Tribunal and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal based on the pleadings, framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶27

In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 09 documents as per Exs.P1 to P9. The respondents neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their behalf.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:4835-DB MFA No. 200988 of 2022

¶29

After assessment of oral and documentary

¶30

evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation as stated supra. The said judgment and award is challenged in this appeal.

¶31

We have heard the learned counsel for the

¶32

appellant so also learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶33

On careful perusal of evidence and documents placed before the Tribunal, it could be seen that there is no dispute with regard to the accident and coverage of insurance policy by the respondent No.2 to the offending vehicle. As such, the only point that remains for consideration is quantum of compensation.

¶34

Before the Tribunal though the petitioner produced medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,37,240/- as per Exs.P7 and P9, to substantiate the same, he failed to examine the doctor who treated him. Further, the petitioner also failed to produce any such disability certificate or documents to prove other expenses incurred

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:4835-DB MFA No. 200988 of 2022

¶36

due to the accident. Hence, the Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record granted a total compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

¶37

On careful perusal of entire evidence on record, we are of the considered view that a global compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- shall be awarded to the petitioner in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶38

For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(a) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶41

(b) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.

¶42

(c) The petitioners are entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:4835-DB MFA No. 200988 of 2022

¶44

(d) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the global compensation with interest before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶45

(e) Upon such deposit the Tribunal is requested to release the entire amount to the claimant.

¶46

(f) The registry is directed to transmit the trial Court records to the concerned Tribunal along with copy of this judgment.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

VNR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT;BN

Suresh v. Mr. Raju and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. Mr. Raju and Anr.

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

Yankappa Vs the State through

The Branch Manager Vs Babu and Ors.

Smt. Akshata and Ors. Vs Sri Modinsab and Ors.

Vishwajeet Vs State and Ors.

Kamalamma W/O Sharnappa D/O Basappa and Anr. Vs Nagamma D/O Gangashetty and Ors.

Ramakanth S/O Trimbak Rao Kulkarni Vs Smt. Neema and Anr.