Sri Suresh Mahadev Kotekar vs Sri Devendrappa Y Upadhya on 12 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Suresh Mahadev Kotekar vs Sri Devendrappa Y Upadhya on 12 August, 2008

Bench: B.V.Nagarathna

.1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF K.aiéNA%:fA;e;A .Jc:'I2<2.t:Ji*:fg:E"1s;,(:'§1
AT 9HAr?w21D*' *  ~ 
DATED 'THIS THE  DAYQ? A1;GLis91f',~2e68
  BEF0RaA%% A A
THE HON'BLE'MR_S.'A--.JL{_§,ff'it1}3§"~ NAGARATHNA

}~.»:.%:ﬁ;a;No.A:1<}£12';:579j;*'I'
32:1-wE£....¥€'i% 1.  I    
Sri. Sufésh   '
Aged 26,    "V
R / +1')  Post.  _Tq. ,
Yeﬂapug, __

'   M  .... ..APPELLAN'I'

 sr:.T.M';'n:a§:,.a;§E-.M.Na;2a1; Advs.)

~.._------nu...

,    Y.Upadhya,
' ,_Majo:z_;, Rcgistemd Owner of Truck

i{A--13/226, C-Io M/s.M.L.B1:uat 85 Co.,
Kaxwétr Road, Yellapur Tq.,

 A. , Kannada.

~  " 2f The Divisional Manager,
; Oriental insurance Co.Ltd.,
T Kcshwapur, Hubli.

.... ..RESPONDENTS

{By Sn'.G.N.Raichur 6:. H.S.Lingaraju, Advs.) -2- This MFA is ﬁled under Section 1723513 6111::-:«.M.\f;Act"'V'~~ against the Judgment and Awaxti"dated_' 31.,12;:3004..'pas$edj' V in MV(3.No.214/2003 on the the ..Pr3.C2'v~i1 Judge (Sr. D11), Member, IAdd1.MAC'I', U.K..., Partly the claim petition for com'pgn'":2atio:a"" Vgseelciiig enhancement of oorap8nsﬁ0F1l"'~ ' ' . ' * court delivered the fgfimvixtgz V ~ _ JUnGx§HgV This MFA coming onV-fe1; A.D'M1SSI'ON day, the 'Fhot:1g'E:;..:Vti:is is.V'1i$1jm1V'fe:;:- Sadmission, with the <:01V1 s¢1it" of of the partics, it is heard and disposwédé " ,This. is ﬁled by the ciaimant sacking 'A A of "§;<')mpcnsaI:ion by challenging the Judment in 1'ViV(3.No.214/2003 dated 31.12.2004 V' * The Ielevant facts of the case at that on 26.5.2003 at about 9.p.m., the cldumant was proceeding towards iﬁnvatﬁ ﬁom his village on his bullock can along with one Sri.Parash11ram when they nsachcci near Krishna Milk ﬁiary, % -3- a truck bearing No. KA~--31 e.'idei.___ towards Yeliapur dI'iVCI1 ri$} reehhlttand dashed against the g._g_eseit m the occupants were "€31.16 died on the spot but the other' Ieetfeifely injured. The claimant false accident. He was taken his for ﬁmt aid, he was later' as Trauma Centre, Hubii where the an inpatient. Contending that as a been}: of ~_i1ij11ri4::s§ sustained in the accident and on of and the grievous iazjuries caused to the " the damage caused to the builock cart, H * ought to. be awaxrled, he ﬁled the claim' J In response to the notice issued by the Tzdbumal the respondent] insurance company appeared and ﬁled its written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and stating that the accident had occurned on ﬁg -4- account of the negligence Llandi AV therefore, sought for of '£he'peﬁtierg . 2 V' "

5. Based on the alqeve pieaeiii1§s*e.t.he ﬂamed the foilowting issues:

_ ihe '~--_"pe«titie_ner praves that the irt 'queV's.'tV£or1' due to rush and e--negiigen¢':;;:d1_ivi_ng__ of 'theVV_c¥r'iver of truck bearing N0.'AKét31 sustained iry'un'es and caused and damage of bullock cart > ofthe " ~ .

the petitioner pmves that they I entitfeﬂfor compensation? If so for what arw from whom he is entitled to?

hat order and seaward?

6. " in support. of his case the claimant examined himseif , "or PW.1a.nd got marked EXP} to P27 while the respondent insuranw company did not let in any evidence except getting a copy of the insurance policy marked as Ex.R1. The Tribune}, awarded compensation of Rs.'72,000/ - with inftexest at 6% pa from the date of petition till nealization on various heads. Not be-ingeaﬁsﬁm with the said Judgment and /£9

-5.

Awantl, the claimant has ' '1 enhancement of compensation.

7. I have heard__ Sri.T.M..1§'adaf._Vleafi1ed,_eof;1Li1se1 for the appellant and counsel for the respondent. V I _ _ «V ;

8. It on "Behalf cvfthei appellant that he had ﬁace 't21'ir.=£; <V)f41i.c'.)se bridge and that he was an in-» patient other injuries and further on account ' ., _ V. VVéseeide1:ﬁ:;"'«both the buﬂocks died and there was £5-tee bullock cart. But the Tribunal has granted a ujeempensation on various heads and therefore, mqueists this court to ;te--asse-ss the compensation.

9. Per comma, it is submitted on behaif of the insurance company that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Fv.'s.37,{)9()/-- on the head of pain and suﬁering and injuries which is exorbitant and that the await! made on the other

---5* heads are just and proper, which é c4éiIi.4.'fore. x interference in this appeal.

10. The only point that fog m3}'m n§$i§ie1 eﬁon is as to whether the £9 veiIhancedAAcempensaﬁon?

11. On of the I ﬁnd that the Tribunajeiéh§§§V_;§i§:§3xjtﬁif:"a_'eu1§1 R's'.3?,()O0/- on the head of pa1'n --af1d which is dis-proportionate to the inj{1iies' the appellant. In my opinion the eicarrgfpezxgsatirfii' 6:1---ﬁie head of pain and suﬁering has to be ' : Rs_.30,000/~ only. Hawever, no amount has been .' . H incidental charges and the award of coxfﬁpensaﬁon on medicai expenses is also meager. Hence x 'T Lag sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded on the head of 1:i1Aedic:al expenses and incidental charges. Further in mspect of death of two bullocks and damage caused to the bullock card, a sum of Rs.20,000/ -- is awanied thereby the enhanced compensation would be Rs.'23,000/~,. which would carry interest at the rate of 6% 30131 the date of claim petition till ﬂ

- 7.

mahza' tion. The tntai Rs.95,0()()/-. The enhanced é1o3.d;g proportionate interest sha1I"'?3§"m1easédV_ to -x*;!1e. ;3131;clla:1t oi:

deposit of the same. '_ 3.1. in part Without any order"

 ____       "  
3 "¥,".=f% _' Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court