Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager National ... vs Pramodkumar S/O Basavaraja ... on 31 August, 2021
Author: Nataraj Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
MFA No.200900/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
HERALAGI BUIDLING,
BEHIND SRI. SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE
BIJAPUR, NOW THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GULBARGA-PIN CODE:585 102. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHADRASHETTY SANGEETA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. PRAMODKUMAR S/O BASAVARAJA KUPPAST
AGE: 20 YEARS OCC: STUDENT
R/O: M. S. HALAKATTI, OLD KUMBAR GALLI,
UPALI BURZ, BIJAPUR-586 101.
02. ABDULGANI S/O BASHEERHAMEED SOUDAGAR
AGE: 42 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: KAMAN KHAN BAZAR
BIJAPUR-586 101. .... RESPONDENTS
(SRI. SANGANABASAVA. B. PATIL, ADV., FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,
1988 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
MVC.NO.73/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.V,
AT BIJAPUR AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN
MVC.NO.73/2011 DATED 15.02.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL NO.V, AT BIJAPUR.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the
liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-V at Bijapur
(henceforth referred as 'Tribunal') dated 15.02.2014 in
MVC.No.73/2011.
02. It is stated that the claimant was a 16 year old
boy who sustained fracture of left forearm and other
injuries in an accident that occurred on 30.10.2010.
Therefore, the claimant-injured filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming
compensation of `.12,75,000/-.
03. The Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence had considered the notional income
of the claimant-injured at a sum of `.15,000/- per annum
and having regard to the disability suffered at 10%,
awarded the following compensation:-
Sl.
Heads Amount
No.
01. Pain and suffering `.0,25,000/-
02. Medical expenses `.0,26,300/-
03. Loss of earning during laid `.0,05,000/-
up period
04. Loss of future earning on `.0,22,500/-
account of permanent
disability
05. Loss of amenities and future `.0,15,000/-
unhappiness
06. Attendant diet conveyance `.0,10,000/-
and others
07. Award amount on permanent `.0,15,000/-
disability
Total `.1,18,800/-
04. The Tribunal directed the insurer to pay
compensation along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum, though the insurer claimed that the driver of the
offending vehicle did not possess requisite endorsement to
drive a Transport Vehicle, but possessed a license to drive
only a Light Motor Vehicle.
05. Being aggrieved by the quantum of the
compensation awarded, as well as the liability fastened on
the insurer by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed.
06. The learned counsel for the insurer contended
that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest at the
rate of 8% per annum and having regard to the injuries
sustained by the claimant-injured, the assessment of
disability at 10% was higher. She also contended that the
Tribunal had committed an error in fastening the liability to
pay the compensation on the insurer, since the driver of a
offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license to
drive a Transport Vehicle.
07. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-
injured submitted that the question regarding liability, is
fully covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 and
the insurer cannot claim exoneration from its liability on
the ground that a driver did not possess a driving license
to drive a Transport Vehicle. He further contended that
since the claimant was a minor award of 8% per annum
interest was justified. He claimed that the Tribunal must
have considered the actual income of the claimant-injured
rather than considering the notional income at `.15,000/-
per annum.
08. Having regard to the fact that the claimant-
injured was 16 years old boy and that he had suffered
10% disability in respect of fracture of left forearm and
other injuries, the assessment of the disability by the
Tribunal cannot be held to be erroneous. Furthermore, the
claimant was an able bodied boy who could have added
value to the family by providing service. In fact, the Apex
Court in the case of Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited and Another
(2014) 14 SCC 396, had awarded a higher compensation
than what is awarded in the present case. In that view of
the matter, the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal, does not deserve to be interfered with. However,
insofar as interest awarded by the Tribunal, the same
deserves to be reduced from 8% to 6%. Insofar as
contention of the insurer that it is not liable to pay
compensation, the same is fully covered by the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan. Hence, the insurer cannot claim exoneration
on the ground that the driver of a offending vehicle did not
possess an endorsement to drive a Transport Vehicle.
09. Hence, this appeal is allowed in part. Except
the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, the quantum
of compensation as well as the liability determined by the
Tribunal is just and proper. The interest awarded by the
Tribunal is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of
claim petition till the date of realization.
The amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to
the Tribunal for necessary orders.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
