Karnataka High Court
Sunanda Sarjerao Mane vs Viraj Sitaram Naik on 1 December, 2021
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1 s t DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO.24521/2012 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1 . SMT. SUNANDA SA RJERAO MANE,
AGE: 29 YEARS , OCC: HOUS EHOLD WORK,
2. KUM. S URAJ S/ O S ARJERAO MANE,
AGE: 10 YEARS , OCC: STUD ENT,
MINOR REPRESENT ED BY NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER PERITIONER NO.1
SMT. SUNANDA SA RJERAO MANE.
3. KUMARI. RAJASHREE D/ O SARJ ERAO MANE,
AGE: 7 YEA RS, OCC: STUDENT ,
MINOR REPRESENT ED BY NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER PERITIONER NO.1
SMT. SUNANDA SA RJERAO MANE.
ALL ARE RESIDEN CE OF R/ O.JUREW ADI.
TQ: KHAVATEMAHANKAL,
DIST: SANGLI ,
NOW AT KATRAL,
TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELA GUM-591304.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SANJAY S .KATAGERI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1 . SHRI. VIRAJ SITA RAM NAIK,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O.H.N O.803, TI SK USGA O,
PONDA , GOA- 403401.
(OWNER OF TI PPER TRUCK
NO.GA-01/T-7176)
2 . THE NATIONAL IN SURANCE COM PAN Y LTD.,
PONDA BRANCH,
2 N D F LOOR,
MEGAJIDADA,
MANSION, ABOVE DENA BANK,
PONDA- 403401.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SMT.ARUNA R. DHESHPANDE, AD VOCATE FOR R2)
(R1 N OTICE SERV ED)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 29.02.2012 PA SSED IN MVC
NO. 1952/ 2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
TRACK COURT , AT ATHANI, PARTLY ALLOWING CLAIM
PEITION F OR COM PENSATION AND S EEKING EN HCEMENT OF
COMPENSTION .
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMI SSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT , D ELIV ERED THE F OLLOW ING:
3
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 29.02.2012 passed by learned presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Athani, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVC No. 1952/2010, this appeal is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of both side, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. Sri.Sanjay S. Katageri, learned counsel for claimants submitted that on 31.05.2010 at about 2 p.m., one Sarjerao Pandurang Mane, a 35 year old tipper driver, was proceeding on left side of road. Another tipper bearing no. GA-05/T-7176 came in rash and negligent manner dashed to Sarjerao Pandurang Mane. He sustained grievous injuries all over body. Immediately he was shifted to Central Hospital, Ponda. Thereafter he took treatment at Civil Hospital, Sangli, Dr. Modke Hospital, Miraj and Wanless Hospital, Miraj.. 4 He died during treatment on 22.06.2010 i.e., about 22 days after date of accident. Alleging loss of dependency due to untimely death, wife and three children filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act,, 1988, against owner and insurer of tipper lorry.
4. Based on pleadings Tribunal framed following issues;
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tipper truck bearing No.GA-
05/T-7176 by its driver and due to
impact of accident deceased Sarjerao
Pandurang Mane sustained fatal injuries and died on 22.06.2010 at Wanless Hospital, Miraj due to accidental injuries?
2. Whether the respondentNo.2 proves that, the driver of the said vehicle had no valid and effective 5 driving licence to drive the same on the date of accident?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, for what amounted and from whom?
4. What order or award?
5. In support of their case, claimant no.1 examined herself as PW.1. Exhibits P.1 to P.40 were marked. On behalf of Respondent no.-2, Administrative Officer was examined as RW.1. Copy of Insurance policy was marked as Exhibit R.1.
6. On consideration, Tribunal held accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. It assessed compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- and held respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay it with interest at 6% p.a. While passing award, tribunal held that death of Sarjerao Pandurng Mane was not on account of injuries sustained in accident. Therefore, claimants were entitled to 6 Rs.50,000/- towards 'loss of estate' and Rs.90,000/- towards medical expenses, food, conveyance, attendance and other incidental charges etc. Dissatisfied with compensation, claimants are in appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for claimants that as per Exhibit P.5 - PM Report and death certificates Exhibit P.9 and P.10, Sarjerao Pandurang Mane, died in hospital. Death occurred within 22 days from date of accident and deceased was aged about 35 years as on date of accident and as he was not suffering from any ailment or old age, cause of death has to be deemed to be accidental injuries. Hence, tribunal was not justified in denying adequate compensation.
8. Learned counsel for respondent - insurer supported award and opposed appeal. 7
9. From the above submission, occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tipper lorry, and death of Sarjerao Pandurang Mane, in the said accident are not in dispute. Tribunal determined age of deceased as 35 years and his occupation as driver, which are also not in dispute. Tribunal has passed an award against insurer. Insurer has not challenged same and therefore, liability to pay compensation, is not in dispute. Claimants are seeking for enhancement. Hence, point for consideration in this appeal is:
"Whether claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as sought for?"
10. In order to establish death of Sarjerao Pandurang Mane, in hospital due to injuries sustained in the accident, claimants produced wound certificate at P.3. Contents of Exhibit P.3 shows that deceased sustained fracture of right Tibia and Fibula. Exhibits P.14 to P.40 - medical receipts and hospital bills 8 indicate that he was under treatment from date of accident. Exhibits P.9 and P.10 - death certificates as well as PM report - Exhibit P.5 reveal that deceased died in hospital, but, cause of death stated in PM report is due to "Acute Myocardial interaction" i.e., due to heart attack. Admittedly, claimants have not examined any doctor to establish that death was due to injuries sustained in the accident. Based on above evidence, tribunal came to conclusion that death was not due to accidental injuries. Said finding does not warrant interference.
While awarding compensation towards medical expenses and other incidental expenses, tribunal has taken into account medical bills produced by claimants for Rs.65,503/-. Adding compensation towards nourishment, conveyance, attendance and other incidental charges, it awarded Rs.90,000/.
11. Admittedly, deceased has taken treatment in several hospitals, at different places. Claimants would 9 have spent considerable amount not only towards medical expenses, but also towards conveyance attendance etc. Though they have produced medical bills for Rs.65,503/-, they cannot be expected to save all the bills. Therefore, award of Rs.90,000/- towards treatment and other incidental charges would be inadequate. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would be just and proper to enhance it to Rs.1,50,000/-. The award of Rs.50,000/- separately towards 'loss of estate' is confirmed. Accordingly, point for consideration is answered partly in affirmative.
In the result, I pass following:
ORDER Appeal is allowed in part.
Claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as against Rs.1,40,000/- awarded by tribunal, which shall carry interest at 6% p.a. 10 Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for disbursement.
Appellant is directed to
deposit balance compensation
within 6 weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this
order.
Proportion of apportionment
deposit and release shall apply as per order of tribunal to enhanced compensation proportionately.
Sd/-
JUDGE A C/ p sg *