Geeta W/O Rajendra Gouda Patil Vs Parameshwar Peerappa Halakatti

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12174 MFA No. 21276 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21276 OF 2013 (MV-I)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. GEETA W/O RAJENDRA GOUDA PATIL AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING, NOW NIL, R/O: KADAGOD, PO. BANAVASI, TAL: SIRSI, DIST. U.K.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADV)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SHRI. PARAMESHWAR PEERAPPA HALAKATTI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O: VIJAYANAGAR, TAL: HIREKERUR DIST. HAVERI.

¶11

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD R/BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.B NO.88, BANGALORE-HONNAVAR ROAD, SHIMOGA CITY.

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

SHRI. KAMALAKAR VITHOBA TANDEL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, R/O : GANDHI NAGAR, SIRSI.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

(BY SRI. S.K KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH & R3 IS SERVED)

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 25.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.123/2010 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, SIRSI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER :

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12174 MFA No. 21276 of 2013

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM:

¶22

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 25.07.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.123/2010 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Sirsi.

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner along with her husband were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/L-9911 on 05.05.2010 when they came near the accident spot at that time, respondent No.3 was driving TATA Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-27/A-2059 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner and her husband sustained grievous injuries. Both filed claim petitions in M.V.C.Nos.125/2010 and 123/2010.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12174 MFA No. 21276 of 2013

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Respondent No.3 despite service of notice

¶30

remained unrepresented and he was placed exparte.

¶31

Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections admitting that he is the registered owner and denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of his vehicle. It is contended that respondent No.3 had valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. Hence, respondent no. 2 is liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1.

¶32

The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident has not occurred due to the rash negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. It is further contended that though as of the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with it, the policy conditions were violated and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against it.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12174 MFA No. 21276 of 2013

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The Tribunal, clubbed both claim petitions and based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the separate issues.

¶37

The petitioners, to substantiate their case, the petitioner in M.V.C.No.125/2010 was examined as PW-1, petitioner in M.V.C.No.123/2010 was examined as PW-2, examined the doctor as PW-3 and marked documents as Exs.P-31 to P-60 in M.V.C.No.123/2010. The Insurance Company has not led any oral evidence, but marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2.

¶38

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, to the petitioner in MVC No.123/2010 and held that respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12174 MFA No. 21276 of 2013

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The petitioner in M.V.C.No.123/2010, being

¶42

dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was doing coolie work and was earning about Rs.10,000/- p.m. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶45

Per contra, 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. Hence, he prays dismiss the appeal.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12174 MFA No. 21276 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the

¶51

accident and the petitioner sustained the grievous injuries. The petitioner, to prove that she has sustained grievous injuries, examined the doctor as PW-3, who was opined that he has examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and opined that the petitioner has suffered the disability to the extent of 20% to the whole body. Admittedly, PW-3 is a treated doctor. The Tribunal has considered the disability to the extent of 20%, which is just and proper. The petitioner, to prove that she was getting an income of Rs.10,000/-, she has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the income must be assessed as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident is of the year 2010 and as per the chart, the national income is to be assessed at Rs.5,500/- p.m. The petitioner was aged 30 years as on the date of accident. The appropriate multiplier to the age group of the petitioner is 17. Accordingly, the loss of earning capacity is worked out as follows:

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12174 MFA No. 21276 of 2013

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Rs.5,500 x 12 x 17 x 20% = 2,24,400/-

¶56

Thus, this Court on re-assessment of entire

¶57

evidence on record, awards the compensation under the following heads:

¶58

Sl.No.	HEADS	AMOUNT
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs.20,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs.71,000/-
3.	Loss of amenities	Rs.25,000/-
4.	Food and attendant charges	Rs.30,000/-
5.	Conveyance charges	Rs.10,000/-
6.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.22000/-
7.	Loss of future income	Rs.2,24,400/-
	Total	Rs.4,02,400/-
Less:	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.1,53,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	Rs.2,49,400/-

¶59

Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to a total

¶60

compensation of Rs.4,02,400/- as against Rs.1,53,000/- and enhanced compensation of Rs.2,49,400/-.

¶61

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass

¶62

the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

(i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part.

¶65

(ii) The judgment and award dated 25.07.2012 passed in M.V.C.No.123/2010 by the learned

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12174 MFA No. 21276 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Sirsi is modified.

¶70

(iii) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,49,400/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization excluding the interest for a period of 142 days of delay in filing the appeal, as per the order dated 16.06.2014.

¶71

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

¶72

(v) The office is directed to transmit the records to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶73

(vi) On deposit of the compensation amount, the Tribunal is directed to release the entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the petitioner.

¶74

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶75

NAA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Geeta W/O Rajendra Gouda Patil v. Parameshwar Peerappa Halakatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geeta W/O Rajendra Gouda Patil v. Parameshwar Peerappa Halakatti

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

The Divisional Manager, Vs Gurushiddappa Siddappa Payannavar

Baban S/O Krishna Kurade Vs Bhimsen

Karabasappa S/O Parameshappa @ Parameshwarappa Vs K. Honnurappa S/O Doddarangappa

Kareppa S/O Laxman Piragi Vs Ramappa S/O Amogi Pujeri Alias Laxmi Pujeri

The Branch Manager, Vs Bharati W/O Veerabhadrappa Shirur

Sri. Ramesh S/O Chandrashekar Asanagi Vs Shankaracharya S/O Gurunath Acharya Kadlaskar