Insurance appeal and claimants' cross-objection against tribunal award for injuries sustained in a motorcycle-bicycle collision. Court held vehicle involvement was proved despite delayed identification by eyewitness, and quantum needed no interference. Both appeal and cross-objection were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1963 MFA No. 103418 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103418 OF 2015 (MV)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100009 OF 2016 IN M. F. A. NO.103418 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI INSURER OF M/C NO.KA-26/H-5171 POLICY NO.151300/31/08/00006163 VALIDITY FROM 24.07.2008 TO 23.07.2009 REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY REGIONAL OFFICE T.P. HUB IIND FLOOR SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
SAROJAHANGARAKI HANGARAKIDate:2024.02.19
15:57:17
+0530
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1963 MFA No. 103418 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016
…RESPONDENTS
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:18.08.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.59/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUKKERI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,76,385/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
IN MFA CROSS OBJ NO.100009 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. S.M. TONNE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA CROB IN MFA 103418/2015 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:18.08.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.59/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUKKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1963 MFA No. 103418 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL AND MFA CROB, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.G.N.Raichur and Sri.S.M.Tonne, learned counsel for the parties.
consent of the parties matters are taken up for final disposal.
of this appeal and cross objection are as under:
3.1 In respect of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, claimant laid a claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking for compensation. It is alleged in the claim petition that on 01.10.2008 at about 9 a.m., when claimant was proceeding on a bicycle from Raibagh to Hubbarawadi, near canal, the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-26/H-5271 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against petitioner and
petitioner fell down. In this regard, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Raibag and after taking first aid treatment there, he has been shifted to Belagavi District Hospital for higher medical care.
3.2 Later on he was shifted to J.G.Hospital, Ghatapraba wherein he was inpatient from 11.10.2008 till 09.11.2008 where under he has been treated for the fractured injury and head injury sustained by him.
3.3 According to the claimant, he was not knowing the registered number of the offending motorcycle and PW.2Sri.Maruti N. Patil having seen the accident, intimated his family members about the involvement of motorcycle bearing No.KA-26/H-5271 in the incident and later on Police recorded statement of the said Maruti and after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the rider of the motorcycle.
3.4 Claim petition was resisted by filing necessary written statement by the insurance company. In the written statement usual defense is that the rider being not
possessing the valid driving license and involvement of the vehicle was contended.
3.5 Based on the rival contentions of the parties, tribunal raised necessary issues and recorded oral evidence of claimant and eye witness Maruthi and two doctors who treated injured, in all four witnesses as PWs.1 to PW.4 and considered the probative value of 35 documents which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P.35 on behalf of the claimant.
3.6 For the reasons best known to the insurance company,
no officer of the insurance company was examined to probablize the defence taken by the insurance company nor any documentary evidence is placed on record.
3.7 Tribunal on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the claimant allowed the claim petition in part in a sum of Rs.5,76,385/- as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1963 MFA No. 103418 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016
| Sl.No. | Name of heads | Amount(Rs.) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pain and sufferings | 29,000-00 |
| 2 | Loss of future income | 3,90,000-00 |
| 3 | Loss of amenities | 25,000-00 |
| 4 | Special diet, attendant and conveyance charges |
20,000-00 |
| 5 | Loss of income during treatment |
5,400-00 |
| 6 | Medical/hospital expenses. | 1,06,985-00 |
| Total | 5,76,385-00 |
appellant vehemently contended that the testimony of alleged eye witness PW.2-Maruthi is illusory in nature and cannot be countenanced in law.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1963 MFA No. 103418 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016
motorcycle rider in the incident so as to claim the compensation which aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial judge especially the cross examination of PW.2 is totally ignored by the tribunal.
representing the claimant contended that the two doctors who have been examined on behalf of the claimant have clearly deposed about the incident and accidental injuries sustained by the claimant.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1963 MFA No. 103418 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016
itself is not a ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW.2. Further, PW.2 has sufficiently explained that he was busy with his personal and employment works. Therefore, he could not go to near the family of claimant and inform about the involvement of motorcycle in the cross examination.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1963 MFA No. 103418 of 2015 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100009 of 2016
ORDER
i) Appeal in MFA No.103418/2015 and MFA
Crob.No.100009/2016 are hereby dismissed.
ii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to tribunal.
iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/JUDGE
HMB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the tribunal erred in holding that motorcycle KA-26/H-5171 was involved in the accident despite the complaint not naming it.
Whether the compensation of Rs.5,76,385/- awarded by the tribunal was excessive.
Whether claimant's cross-objection for enhancement deserved to be allowed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited
Sri. Bhima @ Bhimappa Basappa Patil (since deceased, by LRs)
Sri. Ashok Annappa Masti
V.Srishananda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
