Karnataka High Court
Babulal Yamnoor Nadaf, vs Deepak Sitaram Naik, on 28 August, 2020
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS T HE 28 T H DAY OF AUGU ST 2020
B EFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
M.F .A.NO.21479/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN :
B AB ULAL YAMNOOR NADAF,
AGE : 63 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O KHB COLONY, HAB BUWADA,
KARWAR.
... APPELLANT
(B Y SRI MU RTHY DAYANAND NAIK, ADVOCAT E)
AN D :
1. DEEPAK S ITARAM NAIK,
AGE : MAJOR,
KALASWAD BAAD,
NANDANAGADDA,
KARWAR.
2. UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
CITY TRADE CENTRE, 1 S T FLOOR, KADRI,
MANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(B Y SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R.2 : NOTICE
TO R.1: DISPENSED WIT H)
THIS MISCEL LANEOU S FIRST APPE AL IS FILED
U NDER SECTION 173( 1) OF T HE MOT OR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 AGAINST T HE JU DGMENT A ND AWARD DATED
30. 08.2012 PASS ED B Y THE I ADDIT IONAL M.A.C.T.,
KARWAR IN MVC.NO.118/ 2011 S EEKING EN HANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COU RT DEL IVERED THE F OLLOW ING:
2
: JUDGMENT :
This appeal, though listed for admission, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.08.2012 passed by the I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karwar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in M.V.C.No.118/2011.
3. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 06.05.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., the claimant being a driver of an Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No.KA.30/4460 collided with the motor Car 3 bearing registration No.KA.30/M-4089 which was driven by its diver in a rash and negligent manner. Due to which, the claimant suffered injuries.
5. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal in MVC.No.118/2011 on the ground that he had spent huge sums of money for treatment on account injuries sustained by him in the road accident and claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest.
6. On issuance of notice, the respondent- Insurance Company appeared and filed its statement of objections contending that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Auto Rickshaw namely the claimant and not due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending Car and all other averments were denied by the insurance company in its written statement. 4
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence.
8. The claimant, in order to prove the case, examined himself as P.W.1 and got exhibited 5 documents namely Exs.P1 to Ex.P.5. On the other hand, the respondent-Insurance Company though did not examine any witness, but marked one document as R.W.1, on its behalf.
9. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the claimant was entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,100/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and determined contributory negligence on the part of the claimant to the tune of 40% and saddled the remaining 60% to be paid by the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved the same, the claimant has preferred instant appeal on the ground that the quantum of compensation is on the lower side and also the order deducting of 5 compensation to the tune of 40% on account of contributory negligence.
10. Heard learned counsel Sri Murthy Dayanand Naik, appearing for claimant and learned counsel Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori appearing for Insurance Company.
11. In terms of the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant, though the injuries are very simple in nature, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side, hence I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation by another Rs.5,000/- only on the head of pain and agony looking at the injuries sustained by the claimant. Thus, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The total compensation is awarded at Rs.15,100/- as against Rs.10,100/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. Insofar as it pertains to the saddling of 40% liability on the claimant himself, the 6 Tribunal considering the evidence, has given cogent reasons to restrict the compensation payable by the insurance company to 60% and fastening the liability of 40% upon the claimant. In my considered view, the said reasoning of the Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
13. It is needless to state that the aforesaid compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the payment is made. To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM/-