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.2824 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE. KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KEMPASHETTY DODDI
BYRAMANGALA POST
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK-562160.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.SHANTHARAJ, ADV.)
AND
1. MR. RAVI G.M.
S/O G.P. MADAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT NO.14, HALE GABBADI
HAROHALLI POST
RAMANAGARAM TALUK-562 117.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR
2
SRI. BALAJI NO.132
BRIGADE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025.
... 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: 09.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.576/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, 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 aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.01.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 21.06.2008 at about 9.15 3 p.m., the claimant was sitting in front of his house, at that time, a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42-3555 being driven by its driver, from Bidadi side at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the roadside electric pole which fell on the cattle shed, due to the said impact, cattle died and house of the claimant was damaged.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground of death of his cow and also his house was damaged. It was pleaded that he also spent huge amount towards repair of his house. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the 4 petition were denied. It was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive and imaginary. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.
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 another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited 9 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was examined nor marked any documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and 5 negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, cow of the claimant died and his house was damaged. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions.
Firstly, as on the date of accident the insurance policy was existing, the Tribunal has given a finding that there is no policy coverage to the offending vehicle. As on the date of accident, Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-42-3555 was having effective policy, the Tribunal has fastened liability on owner of the vehicle, which is contrary to law.
6
Secondly, due to the accident there is severe damages to the house of the claimant and cow which was giving 10 liters of milk per day has died. He has produced estimation of Rs.3,50,000/- as per Ex.P9. Over all compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Insurance Company has not disputed about the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-42/3555 having coverage of insurance policy.
Secondly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Even though the claimant has produced Ex.P9, estimation report regarding repair of his house for Rs.3,50,000/-, the Tribunal after considering the materials available on record and evidence of the parties, has rightly 7 assessed the compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that due to accident the claimant's house has damaged and cow died in a road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Since the offending vehicle was covered with insurance policy, the same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. The insurer is liable to pay the compensation.
10. In respect of quantum of compensation is concerned, considering the evidence of the parties and estimation-Ex.P9 and considering the evidence of PW.2 and charge sheet-Ex.P5, I am of the opinion that 8 global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has to be awarded with 6% interest.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mkm/-