Narayan Chudappa Yallurkar Vs Manjula Maruti Hadimani

SHRI. NARAYAN CHUDAPPA YALLURKAR SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS L.R.S 1A.SMT. LEENA W/O. NARAYAN YALLURKAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: H.NO.1171/7B, SHIVAJI ROAD, KONWAL GALLI, BELAGAVI, TALUKA & DIST. BELAGAVI. 1B.SMT. PRAJKTA W/O. PRASHANT BETKEKAR (BEFORE MARRIAGE MISS. PRAJKTA D/O. NARAYAN YALLURKAR) AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: H.NO.1171/7B, SHIVAJI ROAD, KONWAL GALLI, BELAGAVI, TALUKA & DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶10

1C.MISS. HARSHADA D/O. NARAYAN YALLURKAR AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. H.NO.1171/7B, SHIVAJI ROAD, KONWAL GALLI, BELAGAVI, TALUKA AND DIST. BELAGAVI

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. DEEPAK S KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11732 MFA No. 100142 of 2014

¶14

HC-KAR

¶15

AND:

¶16

MISS. MANJULA MARUTI HADIMANI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O: PLOT NO.22, H.NO.503, SARASWATI NAGAR, GANESHPURA, BELGAUM, TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM. (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE BEARING NO.KA-23/Q-1527)

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, TALUK and DIST: BELGAUM.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO THIS COURT THAT THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.10.2013 IN M.V.C. NO.676/2012 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND MACT-IV BELGAUM, IN AWARDING RS.39,500/- @ 6% PER ANNUM BE KINDLY BE MODIFIED BY ENHANCING IT TO RS. 8,00,000/- @ 12% PER ANNUM FORM THE DATED OF THE PETITION, TILL THE DATE OF THE PAYMENT BY HOLDING THE RESPONDENTS LIABLE TO PAY THE COMPENSATION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11732 MFA No. 100142 of 2014

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This Appeal is filed by the petitioner, being

¶27

dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in MVC No.676/2012 dated 10.10.2013, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge and MACT-IV, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’).

¶28

For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Tribunal.

¶29

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶30

The petitioner, on 02.10.2011 while he was walking on Belagavi Ganeshpur road, a motor cycle bearing No. KA23/Q-1527 came in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and dashed to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He spent a huge medical expenses, and hence, filed a claim petition.

¶31

The owner of the motorcycle filed a statement of

¶32

objections denying averments made in the claim petition

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11732 MFA No. 100142 of 2014

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

and contented that the rider of the motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and that the insurance policy was in force as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the motorcycle.

¶36

The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

¶37

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶38

To substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1, the Doctor was examined as PW-2, and marked 10 documents as Ex. P1 to P10. Conversely, neither the owner nor the Insurance Company led any oral

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11732 MFA No. 100142 of 2014

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

evidence; however, only marked 1 document as Ex.R1 i.e. the Insurance Policy.

¶42

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 10.10.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.39,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realisation and held that the owner of the motorcycle and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the said amount.

¶43

The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal seeking an enhancement of compensation.

¶44

During the pendency of this appeal, the original petitioner passed away, and his legal representative were brought on record.

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11732 MFA No. 100142 of 2014

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for legal representatives of the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶49

The Learned counsel for the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner submits that the petitioner had suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 35% ,and to prove the disability, examined the Doctor as PW-2. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.39,500/-, which is on lower side. Hence, he prays to enhance the compensation

¶50

Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. She also submits that during the pendency of this appeal, the original petitioner passed away, and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to a compensation under the head of loss of future income. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11732 MFA No. 100142 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Perused the records ,and considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶54

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation .

¶55

Regarding the quantum of compensation:

¶56

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident, and the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, which occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle, by its rider. To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the Doctor as PW-2. PW-2 opined that the petitioner had suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 35%. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.39,500/-. Admittedly, the petitioner is no more, as the petitioner has spent a huge amount towards the medical expenses and other expenses. In view of the death of the petitioner, the legal representatives are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11732 MFA No. 100142 of 2014

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Further, to prove that the death occurred due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, the legal representatives of the petitioner have not produced any post-mortem report to show that there was a nexus between the death of the original petitioner and the injuries sustained. Considering the entire records, this Court is of the opinion that the legal representatives of the petitioner are entitled to a global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/towards the medical and other expenses.

¶60

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

(ii) The Judgment and award passed dated 10.10.2013 in MVC No.676/2012, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge and MACT-IV, Belgaum, stands modified.

¶64

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11732 MFA No. 100142 of 2014

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

(iii) The legal representatives of the petitioner are entitled to a global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, including the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶67

(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with the accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶68

(v) The amount in deposit, if any, and trial Court records, be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶69

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶70

RHR/-

¶71

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Narayan Chudappa Yallurkar v. Manjula Maruti Hadimani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Chudappa Yallurkar v. Manjula Maruti Hadimani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar S/O Ramakant Padti Vs the Registrar

Shiva S/O Govind Naik, Vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mohammed S/O Shahajan Shaikh

Shri Hariram S/O Prabharam Choudhary Vs Umesh S/O Chandrakant Dattawade

Chidanand S/O Nagendra Wadekar Vs Ratnabai W/O Balakrishna@Balappa Pisse

The Branch Manager Vs Hariram S/O Parbharam Choudhary