1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.9817 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI
NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O GOPI
R/O NO.88, GOWRAMMA BUILDING
ANNEYAPPA ROAD
R.S.PALYA, M.S.NAGARA POST
BANGALORE-560 033.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. Y.RADHA, ADV.)
AND
1. JAGADISH
S/O ANJENAPPA
KAMMAGOWDANAHALLI
I.D.POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MITTAL TOWERS
KASTURBA ROAD
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PUTTIGE R RAMESH, ADV. FOR R2:
NOTICE TO R1 DISMISSED AS
NON PROSECUTION )
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:10.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7697/2010
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT
OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 3 by the judgment dated 10.4.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 3.10.2010, the claimant was traveling in autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-03- B-8809 along with her family members near 3rd Cross, Banaswadi Main Road, Jai Bharath Nagara, Bengaluru, at that time, tata sumo bearing registration No.KA-02-AA- 6843 came at high and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the claimant. 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 she was working as a house maid and was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m. It was pleaded that she also spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of 4 the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses 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. 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 5 recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 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.16,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant- claimant has raised following contentions:
Firstly, the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the 6 ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence as on the date of accident. Even as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. [AIR 2018 SC 592], even if the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Secondly, as per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained fracture of middle 3rd shaft right clavicle He has suffered fracture of right leg, waist, right shoulder, right hand and other parts of the body. Considering the same, the global compensation of Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
7
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that driver of the offending vehicle is not having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident which amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, the claimant has sustained minor injuries in the accident and he has not examined the doctor regarding the disability suffered by him. Considering the nature of injuries, the Tribunal has granted just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent manner driving of the offending vehicle.
As on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence. Under the circumstances, as per the law laid down by 8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. [AIR 2018 SC 592], even though the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
In view of the above decision, this court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and later recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
10. In respect of quantum of compensation is concerned, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of middle 3rd shaft right clavicle and also undergone surgery. The claimant has not examined the doctor regarding disability suffered by him. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained 9 by the claimant, the global compensation of Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. 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 with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM