SHRI. KALLAPPA v. SHRI. VIJAY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 04.07.2018, i) ii) passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and JMFC, Khanapur, in MVC No.327/2015 stands modified. iii) The claimant is…
Judgment
(BY SRI HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND:
SHRI. VIJAY S/O. KEMPANNA BADIWADDAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 3RD CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, KHANAPUR-591302, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI.
THE GENERAL MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590002. (BY SRI M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT) …APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.07.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.327/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, KHANAPUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:592 MFA No. 104506 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 04.07.2018, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and JMFC, Khanapur, in MVC No.327/2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation.
Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court.
The occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case.
In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries:
1) Fracture medial malliolus left ankle, Sublaxation with antibial articular bone loss at ankle joint left side. 2) Fracture of maxilla of both sides nasal bones. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:592 MFA No. 104506 of 2018 3) Fracture of distal phalanx.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads as under: Heads. Sl. No. 1. Pain, shock and suffering. 2. Loss of amenities. 3. Loss of income during Amount in (Rs.) 50,000/- 20,000/- 19,000/- laid-up period.
4. Extra, diet, charges 4,000/- conveyance Incidental charges.
5. Medical expenses. 6. Loss of future income 91,383/- 60,000/- Total: 2,44,383/-
Considering the nature of injuries sustained, compensation awarded by Tribunal is marginally lesser side. Therefore, the same is required to be enhanced by awarding additional global compensation. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for an additional global compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit enhanced global compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:592 MFA No. 104506 of 2018
Operative part
In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 04.07.2018, i) ii) passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and JMFC, Khanapur, in MVC No.327/2015 stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled for additional global compensation of Rs.50,000/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The insurance company shall deposit the compensation within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. v) Send a copy of this judgment and award to the trial Court. vi) No order as to costs. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:592 MFA No. 104506 of 2018 vii) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed in part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173(1).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.