The Branch Manager Vs Hariram S/O Parbharam Choudhary

THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, MOKTALI BUILDING , OPP. BUS STAND, HAVERI-581110 (POLICY NO. 2401023117P104667690 VALID FROM 28-06-2017 TO 27-06-2018)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOITICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C.NO.65/2020 DATED 13.09.2021 BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, AT SHIGGAON IN THE INTERS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

IN MFA NO.101528/2022 BETWEEN:

¶24

THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, MOKTALI BUILDING OPP. BUS STAND HAVERI. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, TP-HUB, ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANCE MANAGER.

¶25

…APPELLANT

¶26

(BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

HARIRAM S/O. PARBHARAM CHOUDHARY, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, TQ & DIST: HAVERI 581112

¶29

UMESH S/O. CHANDRAKANT DATTAWADE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC; LORRY OWNER, R/O. TAPAKWADI, TQ. CHIKKODI DIST. BELAGAVI-590021. OWNER OF THE LORRY NO. MH-09./CA-1836.

¶30

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED)

¶31

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH AWARD AND JUDGMENT MADE IN MVC NO.65/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT SHGGAON, AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.09.2021 BY REDUCING THE COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

These Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ M.V.Act, ’ for short), challenging the judgment and award dated 13.09.2021 passed in MVC No.65/2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Shiggaon.

¶38

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:

¶39

On 21.05.2018, the petitioner, while returning from Hubballi to Haveri in NWKRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA27/F-535, a lorry bearing Reg.No.MH-09/CA-1836, driven by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the bus. As a result, the petitioner has sustained fractures and the grievous injuries. He incurred a huge medical expenses. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶43

The owner of the offending vehicle, though appeared through the counsel, however did not file any statement of objections.

¶44

The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. It is contended that the liability of the insurance company is subject to the policy terms and conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

¶45

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

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The petitioner, to substantiate his case,

¶49

examined himself as P.W.1, examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, and marked 154 documents as Exs.P1 to P154. Conversely, the Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4.

¶50

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 13.09.2021, and awarded a compensation of Rs.22,30,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realisation, and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.

¶51

The Insurance Company and the petitioner, both being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.65/2020 insofar as the quantum of compensation, have filed these Miscellaneous First Appeals.

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

¶56

the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶57

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He submits that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.19,500/-, which is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, and dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶58

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was doing mobile business, and because of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, he has stopped the business. He submits that the petitioner has produced the income tax returns marked as Exs.P-145 and P-146, which disclose that the petitioner was having a monthly income of Rs.19,500/-. He also submits that the Tribunal has not added future prospects. He also submits

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

that to prove the disability, the petitioner has examined the doctor as P.W.3, who has deposed that petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 88% to the left lower limb, wherein the Tribunal has taken the disability at 30%, which is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner, and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶62

Perused the records, and considered the

¶63

submission of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶64

The point, that would arise for my consideration is regarding the quantum of compensation:

¶65

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced a copy of the charge sheet marked as Ex.P9, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

the driver of the offending vehicle/ lorry. The Tribunal was

¶69

justified in answering issue No.1 and 3 in the affirmative.

¶70

Regarding quantum of compensation:

¶71

The petitioner contended that he was doing a

¶72

mobile business and used to earn Rs. 25,000/- p.m., and he was an income tax assessee. To prove that he was an income tax assessee, he produced the income tax returns marked as Exs.P145 and P146. The petitioner has produced the income tax returns for two years before the accident. From the perusal of Exs.P145 and P146, it is evident that, the petitioner was earning a monthly income at Rs.19,500/-, and the Tribunal was justified in taking the income of the petitioner at Rs.19,500/- p.m. The petitioner was aged 23 years old as of the date of the accident, and the Tribunal has not added the future prospects. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v.

¶73

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Pranay Sethi and others¹ , 40% of the future prospects is to be added to the income of the petitioner, i.e., Rs.19,500/- + Rs.7,800/-(40%) = Rs.27,300/-. This court re-asses the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.27,300/-. The petitioner examined the treated doctor as P.W.3. He deposed that petitioner had taken the treatment at KLE’s Dr.Prabhakar Kore Hospital, Belagavi, being an inpatient from 22.05.2018 to 30.06.2018 and from 06.07.2019 to 11.07.2019. He has issued the disability certificate marked as Ex.P143. He has opined that the petitioner has sustained a permanent disability to an extent of 88% to the left lower limb, wherein the Tribunal has taken the disability at 30%, which is on the lower side. Admittedly, P.W.3 is a treated doctor. Thus, this court reassesses the disability at 60%.

¶76

Thus, this court on re-assessment of the entire evidence on record, awards the following compensation :

¶77

1 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Sl.	Heads of	Compensation B the	awarded in Rs.
No.	compensation	y Tribunal	By this Court
1	Towards pain and sufferings	15,000/-	50,000/-
2	Medical expenses	7,41,900/-	7,41,900/-
3	Towards conveyance, food nourishment and attendant charges	29,200/-	50,000/-
4	Loss of income during the laid up period	1,56,000/-	1,09,200/- (Rs.27,300 x 4)
5	Loss of future earning		35,38,080/-
	due to permanent disability	12,63,600/-	(Rs.27,300/- x12x18x60%)
6	Loss of amenities	25,000/-	40,000/-
7	Future medical expenses	--	50,000/-
	Total :	22,30,700/-	45,79,180/-
	Compensation	enhanced by:	23,48,480/-

¶82

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total

¶83

compensation of Rs. 45,79,180 as against Rs. 22,30,700 awarded by the tribunal i.e., to an enhanced compensation of RS. 23,48,480.

¶84

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶85

pass the following order:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

i) The Appeal in MFA NO. 101528/2022 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.

¶88

ii) The Appeal in MFA NO.100388/2022 filed by the petitioner is partly allowed.

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11731 MFA No. 100388 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 101528 of 2022

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

iii) The judgment and award dated 13.09.2021 passed in MVC No.65/2020 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Shiggaon, is hereby modified.

¶93

iv) The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.45,79,180/- as against Rs.22,30,700/awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realisation.

¶94

v) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.23,48,480/-.

¶95

vi) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶96

vii) The Tribunal records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.

¶97

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶98

MBS CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

The Branch Manager v. Hariram S/O Parbharam Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Hariram S/O Parbharam Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Narayan Chudappa Yallurkar Vs Manjula Maruti Hadimani