1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.5992 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.K.VEERENDRAKUMAR
S/O KOMARAPPA
AGE 38 YEARS
R/AT KITHOOR VILLAGE
KODLIPET HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571231.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.PRASANNA V.R., ADV. )
AND
1. SRI. K.P SOMASHEKARA
S/O LATE PUTTASWMY
AGED 31 YEARS
OCC: AUTO DRIVER
R/AT KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE
SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI
SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 427.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH INSURANCE OFFICE
MYSORE TRADE CENTER
2
1ST FLOOR, L-36/D
IN FRONT OF KSRTC BUS STAND
MYSORE-570 001.
REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2:
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:09.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.140/2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE AD-HOC DISTRICT JUDGE, AND
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KODAGU,
MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimant being 3 aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.04.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 27.06.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding in an Auto- rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-12/A-4838 being driven by its driver, near Honnekoppalu Junction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due to the said impact, Auto-rickshaw turtled down. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he was aged about 37 years, was doing business and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It was pleaded that he also spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the 4 accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and respondent No.2 only filed detailed objection in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the claimant is the owner of the Auto- Rickshaw and he is not the third party, the Tribunal has jurisdiction only to entertain the 3rd party. It was further pleaded that the petition is also misconceived, as under Section 166 of MV Act only third party claims can be preferred and hence it is liable to be dismissed. The age, avocation and income of the claimant, medical expenses incurred by the claimant are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.Gangu Hiral S. as PW-2 and got exhibited 16 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any witness nor marked any documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that, due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,27,100/- even though he has claimed total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and Tribunal has fixed liability on the Insurance Company only to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The same is contrary to the materials available on record. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that, the claimant is the owner of the offending vehicle. Since personal claim for P.A. coverage is limited only to Rs.1,00,000/-, the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability on the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
7
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and original records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 27.06.2012.
The insured, as per policy has paid extra premium of Rs.100/- for personal coverage. In view of the policy conditions, the claimant is entitled for compensation only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability on the Insurance Company only to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- with 6% interest.
The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
Mkm JUDGE