SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.G.PANDIT,M.G.S.KAMAL
GANGAPPA S/O BASAPPA @ BASALINGAPPA SULTANPUR – Appellant
Versus
H.P.MADHUKAR AND ANR – Respondent
MFA/31651/2012



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

M.F.A. NO.31651/2012

C/W

M.F.A. NO.30174/2012

IN MFA NO.31651/2012:

Between:

Gangappa

S/o Basappa @ Basalingappa Sultanpur

Age: 13 years, Occ: Student since minor

R/p by his father Basappa @ Basalingappa

S/o Gangappa Sultanpur

R/o Nagabevinhal, Tq. Muddebihal

Dist. Bijapur

... Appellant

(By Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, Advocate)

And:

1.

H.P. Madhukar

Age: 53 years, Occ: Contractor

R/o 41 Prashant

Vijayanagar Extension Hubli

Dist. Dharwad

2.

The Manager

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Second Floor, Bellad & Company

Gokul Road, Hubli

2

Now at Timmapuri Chowk, Gulbarga

Gulbarga

... Respondents

(Sri C.S. Kalburgi, Advocate for R2;

R1 - served)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to allow the appeal

and consequently modify the judgment and award dated

21.12.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & Addl. MACT at

Shorapur in MVC No.1361/2009 and enhance the compensation

amount from Rs.2,72,752/- to Rs.21,71,000/- along with interest

at the rate of 12%.

IN MFA NO.30174/2012:

Between:

ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Through its Manager

Now represented by its Manager

Second Floor, Bellad and Company

Gokul Road, Hubli

Now represented by

ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.

Timmapuri Circle, Court Road

Gulbarga through its Manager Legal

... Appellant

(By Sri C.S. Kalburgi, Advocate)

And:

1.

Gangappa S/o Basappa

@ Basalingappa Sultanpur

Age: 12 years, minor, Occ: Student

Now Nil, U/g of his father by name

Basappa @ Basalingappa

S/o Gangappa Sultanpur

R/o Nagabevinhal

Tq. Muddebihal, Dist. Bijapur

Represented through his natural father

2.

H.P. Madhukar

Age: 52 years, Occ: Contractor

3

R/o 41 Prashant

Vijayanagar extension, Hubli

... Respondents

(Sri Sudhirsingh R. Vijapur, Advocate for R1;

R2 - served)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, praying to set aside the

judgment and award dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Civil Judge

(Sr.Dn.) & Addl. MACT at Shorapur in MVC No.1361/2009 and to

modify the compensation awarded and to pass such other order as

this Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case

including the costs.

These appeals coming on for final hearing this day,

S.G.Pandit, J., delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Both the above appeals are filed under Section

173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act'),

assailing the judgment and award dated 21.12.2010 in

MVC No.1361/2009 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) &

Addl. MACT at Shorapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal' for short). The insurer is in appeal in MFA

No.30174/2012 challenging the saddling of liability and

the claimant is in appeal in MFA No.31651/2012

praying for enhancement of compensation.

2.

The claimant, a minor aged 10 years as on

the date of accident filed a claim petition under Section

4

166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the

accidental injuries suffered on 29.05.2009 involving

goods vehicle bearing No.KA-28/A-7253 and Tata

Hitachi Hydraulic Excavator. It is stated that the

claimant

sustained

commuted

fracture

of

right

humerous, fracture of right radices, fracture of right

femur, amputation of left enden finger, fracture of right

radius, lacerated wound over left side of forehead and

lacerated wound over right upper arm. Initially, he took

treatment at Primary Health Center, Kodekal and

thereafter he was referred to B.L.D.E Hospital, Bijapur

where he was inpatient for 35 days.

3.

On service of notice, both respondent Nos.1

and 2 appeared before the Tribunal and filed their

statement of objections. Respondent No.1 categorically

denied the inj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top