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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
MALLAMMA W/O LACHAPPA TAKKALKI, – Appellant
Versus
BHEEMANNA S/O AMBANNA, – Respondent
MFA/201931/2014



MFA No.201931/2014

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

MFA No.201931/2014 (MV)

BETWEEN:

Mallamma

W/o Lachappa Takkalki

Aged: 43 years

Occ: Agricultural Labour and

Milk Vendor Now Nil

R/o Itega, H.No.57

Taluk Chittapur

Dist. Kalaburagi

... Appellant

(By Sri Sanjeev Patil, Advocate)

AND:

1.

Bheemanna S/o Ambanna

Aged Major, Occ: Owner of Jeep

No.KA-36/M-3136

R/o House No.112

Bhavi Galli, Chittapur

Dist. Gulbarga

2.

The National Insurance Co.Ltd.

Divisional Office

Dr. Jawali Complex

Super Market, Gulbarga

MFA No.201931/2014

2

Represented by its

Divisional Manager

... Respondents

(By Sri Deepak V. Barad, Advocate for R2;

Notice to R1 is dispensed with

v/o dated 10.08.2015)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section

173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to exercise its

appellate jurisdiction, call for records and modify the

judgment and award dated 25.08.2014 passed by the

Senior

Civil

Judge

and

MACT,

Chittapur,

in

MVC

No.25/2011 by enhancing the compensation amount from

Rs.1,12,500 to Rs.10,00,000/- and also enhance the

interest payable by the respondents on the compensation

amount, and further to allow this appeal filed by the

appellant herein.

This appeal coming on for Admission this day, the

Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.

The claimant/appellant is before this Court aggrieved

by the judgment and award dated 25.08.2014

passed by Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, (‘Tribunal’, for short), Chittapur in

MVC No.25/2011.

MFA No.201931/2014

3

2.

The Tribunal by way of above judgment has awarded

a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. in

favour of the appellant for injuries sustained by her

in the accident that occurred on 24.06.2009.

3.

Heard. Admit.

4.

With the consent of both the sides, the above appeal

is taken up for final disposal at the stage of

admission itself.

5.

On 24.06.2009, the claimant was travelling in a jeep

from Itaga to Chittapur, and at about 4.00 p.m. the

driver of he jeep drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle,

due to which, the claimant travelling in the jeep and

others who were on the bicycle sustained injuries.

They

were

treated

at

Basaveshwara

Hospital,

Kalaburagi and thereafter filed the claim petition.

The

Tribunal

after

trial

awarded

a

sum

of

Rs.1,12,500/-.

MFA No.201931/2014

4

6.

The present appeal has been filed seeking for

enhancement of compensation by the appellant who

was the claimant before the Tribunal.

7.

The Insurance Company has not filed any other

appeal.

8.

The appellant has sustained fracture of olecranon

process, laceration over left parietal region of the

scalp, laceration on the right parietal region of the

scalp, grievous injury over the right wrist, grievous

injury over the elbow joint and on other parts of the

body.

9.

The Tribunal awarded the compensation amount on

the following heads.

Sl.No.

Heads of accounts

Rupees (Rs.)

1

Pain and sufferings

25,000/-

2

Medical expenses

12,000/-

3

Diet and Attendant charges 10,000/-

4

Loss of future income

60,480/-

5

Loss of earnings during the

laid-up period

05,000/-

Total 1,12,480/-

Rounded off 1,12,500/-

MFA No.201931/2014

5

10.

The appellant has preferred the present appeal

seeking

for

enhancement

of

compensation

contending that the amounts awarded by the

Tribunal

are

meager,

insufficient,

contrary

to

applicable guidelines. The compensation awarded

under the different heads of account does not take

into account the gravity and severity of the injuries

suffered by the appellant. The appellant is therefore

entitled to for higher compensation than that

awarded by the Tribunal.

11.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company contends that what has been

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