- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2307 MFA No. 23243 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23243 OF 2013 (MV-I) BETWEEN: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CORPORATE REGD. OFFICE, ORIENTAL HOUSE, P.B. NO.7037, A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110022. REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., JANARDHAN ARCADE, DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MANHANTESH SHIVAPPA HIREKOPPA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: MASONRY, R/O: GUDI CHAWL, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1A) SMT. CHANNANNA W/O. MAHANTESH HIREKOPPA, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 1B) PRASHANT S/O. MAHANTESH HIREKOPPA, AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1C) RAVI S/O. MAHANTESH HIREKOPPA, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2307 MFA No. 23243 of 2013 1D) LAXMI D/O. MAHANTESH HIREKOPPA, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1E) SHILPA D/O. MAHANTESH HIREKOPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1F) NAGARAJ S/O. MAHANTESH HIREKOPPA, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 1G) SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA HIREKOPPA, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF GODI CHAWL, BAILHONGAL, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SRI ASHOK S.VANNUR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT (RETD), R/O: MADIWALAR CHAWL, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. DEEPA G., ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) R1(D), R1(E) AND R1(G); NOTICE TO R1(B), R1(C) AND R1(F) ARE SERVED; R2-SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28-03-2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.2000/2012 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BAILHONGAL AND PLEASED TO GRANT COSTS, AND ETC., - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2307 MFA No. 23243 of 2013 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 28.03.2013 in MVC No.2000/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), seeking to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Heard the arguments and perused the material placed before the Court. 3. The occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant, coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case. 4. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2307 MFA No. 23243 of 2013 i) Brust fracture D9 & D10 Vertebral body C Retropulsion of fracture fragments causing extradural compression on cre compression. ii) Fracture spinous process of D6, D8, D9 & D10 Vertegra. iii) Fracture Transverse process of D9 & D10 on right. iv) Fracture pf 8th & 9th rib on right side. v) Fracture of 8th and 9th left ribs. vi) Grade I right renal injury. vii) Fracture of lateral border of scapula left side. viii) Fracture of occipital bone with Temporal parietal hemorrhage. 5. In the present case, the accident is caused on 19.05.2012 and the deceased died on 01.04.2013. Therefore, the deceased died within a period of one year from the date of accident. Upon considering the medical evidence on record, it is proved that the deceased suffered multiple fractured injures all over the body, including vital areas such as Vertebrae, Ribs and Scapula. There was also a fracture of the occipital bone with temporal parietal hemorrhage and etc. Consequently, the deceased died within one year from the date of accident. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2307 MFA No. 23243 of 2013 6. During the lifetime of the deceased the judgment was delivered on 20.03.2013 and the deceased died on 01.04.2013. Therefore, upon considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is found to be just and proper, which needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. Amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33