Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24515 OF 2011 (MV-I) C/W MFA CROSS OBJ NO.930 OF 2012 IN MFA.NO.24515/2011 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI, THROUGH ASSISTANT MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE RESPONDENT-INSURER LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. BABU
SAMREEN S/O. CHANDRAPPA NAIK @ LAMANI, AYUB DESHNUR AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NOW-NIL, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB R/O: CHANNAPUR TANDA, DESHNUR Date: 2024.02.22 16:46:33 +0530 TALUK: RANEBENNUR.
2. SRI. B.K. GANGADHAR
S/O: B.K. KEMPAGOUDA, OWNER OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-13/6791, R/O: BEKKA VILLAGE, S. BELAGOL POST, TALUK: CHANNARAYAPATTAN, DIST: HASSAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE; R2 DISPENSED WITH) -2- THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:02.04.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.496/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.6,45,800/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT. IN MFA.CROB NO.930/2012 BETWEEN: BABU S/O. CHANDRAPPA NAIK @ LAMANI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/AT: CHANNAPUR TANDA, TQ: RANEBENNUR, …CROSS OBJECTIOR (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. B.K. GANGADHAR S/O. B.K. KEMPAGOUDA, OWNER OF TIPPER LORRY BEARING NO.KA-13/6791, AT BEKKA VILLAGE, POST: S. BELAGOL, TQ: CHENNARAYAPATTANA, DIST: HASSAN.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ENKEY COMPLEX, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. RAGHUVEER SATTIGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA.NO.24515/2011 FILED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC., 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD: 02-04-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.496/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE(SR.DN) AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -3-
JUDGMENT
Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the validity of the
judgment and award passed in MVC No.496/2006 dated
02.04.2006 on the file of Additional Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal, Ranebennur.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act in respect of accidental injuries sustained by the claimant on 11.12.2005 at about 4.00 a.m, who is a coolie in a lorry bearing No.KA.13/6791.
3. According to the averments of claim petition, when
the claimant was signaling the lorry driver with the help of a torch for taking the lorry to the reverse side, on account of the negligent driving by the driver of the lorry, it dashed against it and he sustained injury on the groin region and he was taken to hospital at Ranebennur.
4. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.32 are the wound certificate and
disability certificate. According to the claimant, because of the accidental injuries, he lost his masculinity and there is a serious damage to his reproductive organs. -4-
5. The claim petition was seriously opposed by filing detailed written statement including the injuries sustained by the claimant and disability suffered thereof.
6. Tribunal, on contest, allowed the claim petition in a sum of Rs.6,45,800/- as under:
1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
2. Disability on account of Rs.3,67,200/- accidental injuries
3. Medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
4. Income during laid up period Rs.10,800/-
5. Loss of amenities and Rs.1,50,000/- expectancy of life and happiness
6. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
7. Receipts of Prajavani Rs.2,800/- newspaper
8. Attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- nourishment etc. Total Rs.6,45,800/-
7. Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company is in appeal.
8. Sri.S.K.Kayakamath, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the disability certificate issued by the Doctor is incorrect and same has not -5- been properly taken note by the Tribunal, while assessing the quantum of compensation especially, on the head of loss of future income and on account of disability and sought for allowing the appeal.
9. He also contended that in case the claimant is
insisting that he has suffered the injuries, he may be directed to appear before the Medical Board so as to assess the real disability suffered by the claimant and sought for allowing the appeal.
10. Sri.Anjaneya M., learned counsel for respondent
No.1 contended that the injuries are such that the masculinity of the claimant has been lost in the groin region and claimant is entitled for reasonable enhancement and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Insofar as directing the claimant to appear before
the Medical Board, he contended that incident is of the year 2005 and at this distance of time, directing the claimant to appear before the Medical Board is a futile aspect and in the event this Court is of the considered opinion that if some amount of quantum of compensation is deducted/reduced, the -6- same can be done in this appeal itself and dispose of the appeal on merits.
12. Taking note of the above aspects of the matter and
the injuries mentioned in the injury certificate and disability certificate, deducting a sum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from Rs.6,45,800/- globally, would meet the ends of justice, taking note of the fact that the injuries have occurred in the year 2005, happiness and prime time in the life of the claimant has been lost on account of injury.
13. Further, as rightly contended by Sri.Anjaneya M.,
learned counsel directing the claimant to appear before the Medical Board at this distance of time is nothing but a futile exercise. Therefore, there is no scope for enhancing the compensation.
14. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed in part as against sum of Rs.6,45,800/- claimant is -7- entitled to Rs.4,45,800/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. ii. Cross objection of the claimant is dismissed. iii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- JUDGE KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40