Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Dadagouda S/O. Babagouda Patil on 12 February, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH
DATED THIS THE 12 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.J USTICE AS HOK S. KINAGI
M.F.A .No.25682/ 2011 (MV)
BETWEEN
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH APMC YARD, SAUNDATTI,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMDEV GALLI,BELGAUM
R/BY REGIONAL OFFICE,DEPUTY MANAGER
..... APPELLANT
(BY SRI S S JOSHI, ADV.)
AND
1. DADAGOUDA S/O. BABAGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GANAGANUR VILLAGE,
TQ: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM
OWNER OF AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING
NO.KA-24/423
2. GADENAIK S/O. NINGANAIK NAIKAR,
AGE: 52 YRS, OC: NOW NIL,
R/O. BASARAGI VILLAGE, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT AFSHAN A SHABASHKHAN, ADV. FOR R-1
SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV. FOR R-2)
-2-
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29-08-2011 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.2261/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, ADDL. MACT,
SAUNDATTI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,84,230/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON F OR ADMI SSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIV ERED THE F OLLOW ING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Addl. M.A.C.T, Savadatti, in M.V.C.No.2261/2009.
2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case that 20.08.2009, the claimant was returning towards Kolla Torgal bus stand along with his son Ramachandra after getting the blessings of deity Karemma devi of Killa Torgal. They were walking by the side of the road. At about 11.00 -3- a.m., on Katkol-Ramdurg road near Killa Torgal near Sri Sattewwa devi temple, one passenger auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-24/4231 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Ramdurg side and while turning the vehicle, the driver lost control over the same and dashed the vehicle to the claimant and thereby caused the accident. The claimant fell down and sustained injuries to his left thigh and grievous injuries to all over his body. Immediately he was shifted to Dr.M.M. Hooli's hospital at Saundatti and he was an indoor patient from 20.08.2009 to 19.09.2009. Thereafter he took follow up treatment. He spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the accidental injuries, the claimant has become permanently disabled and he is not in a position to do any avocation. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
4. After the service of notice, respondent No-1 owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and he -4- placed ex parte. The second respondent insurance company appeared and filed written statement denying the age, income, accident and medical expenses etc. It is also disputed that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw. It is contended that the claimant attempted to cross the road suddenly without observing the vehicles and therefore, the accident occurred. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained bodily injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 20-8-2009 at about 11 a.m. on Katkol-Ramdurg road near Killa Torgal Sri Shettemma Devi temple, on account of rash and negligent driving of Auto rickshaw vehicle bearing its Reg.No.KA.24/4231 by its driver?-5-
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, for what amount and from whom?
3. What order?
6. The claimant in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 and examined one Dr.M.M. Hooli as PW-2 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-19. The insurance company has not led any evidence either oral or documentary.
7. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence held that the claimant has proved that he has sustained bodily injury in the road traffic accident that occurred on 20.08.2009 on the ground of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto rickshaw. Further held that the claimant sustained injuries and awarded compensation of Rs.2,84,230/- payable by the insurance company. The respondent No.2 insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, this appeal is filed.
-6-
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Further, he restricts the appeal to quantum only.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. From the perusal of the judgment, it is seen that it is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. In order to prove the injuries, claimant has examined PW-2 who has deposed that the claimant has sustained injuries and he has treated the claimant and he has assessed the disability to the extent of 55% of the lower limb. He deposed that the claimant has sustained the injuries and he has issued the disability certificate as per Ex.P-4. Though -7- the insurance company counsel has cross-examined PW- 2, but nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW- 2 with regard to the manner of assessment of disability. Even the respondent has not led any evidence to rebut the evidence of claimant.
12. Though the claimant has not produced any records to show his monthly income but in fact, it is pertinent to note that the accident has occurred in the year 2009 and the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.3,600/- which is on the lower side. As per the chart prepared by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the income should be taken at Rs.5,000/- for the victims of accidents in the year 2009. Further the doctor has assessed the disability to the extent of 55% wherein the Tribunal has taken only 30%. Hence, the contention of the insurance company that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side, cannot be accepted. I do not find any -8- ground to interference with the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
13. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE Naa