Karnataka High Court
Kiran Gajanan Naik vs Mohammad Iqbal S/O Abdul Kareem ... on 2 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02 n d DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.NO.22801/2013(MV)
C/W
M.F.A.NO.22800/2013(MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.22801/2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
SATISHA SHIVU GOWDA,
AGE: 20 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: UN CHALLI,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VISHWAN ATH K.BHAT, ADV.
FOR SRI .NARAYAN V.YAJI , ADVOCATES)
AND
1 . MOHAMMAD IQBAL,
S/O ABD UL KAREEM MANIYAR,
AGED: 28 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: NATARAJ ROAD,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR.
2 . IBRAHIM S/O M UKBULSAB,
AGE: 32 YEARS ,
OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: TIMMAPUR,
POST: ANAVATTI ,
TQ: SORA B, DIST: SHIMOGGA.
2
3 . UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE
COM., LTD., REPT ED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE,
2A, 2ND FLOOR,
84-RAMSON COMPLEX, HOSUR,
P.B. ROAD , HUBLI.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN MADANALLI ,
FOR SRI .NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV OCATES FOR R3)
(R1 N OTICE SERV ED)
(R2 DIS PENSED W ITH)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 30.03.2013 PA SSED IN MVC
NO. 58/ 2012 ON THE FILE OF S ENIOR CIVIL JUD GE AND
MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SIRSI, PA RTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PEITION FOR OM PENS ATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION .
IN M.F.A.NO.22800/2013(MV)
BETWEEN
KIRAN GAJANAN N AIK,
AGE: 20 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O.UNCHALLI,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VISHWAN ATH K.BHAT,
FOR SRI .NARAYAN V.YAJI , ADV OCAT ES)
AND
1 . MOHAMMAD IQBAL,
S/O: ABD UL KAREEM MANIYAR,
AGED: 28 YEARS ,
3
OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O.NATARAJ ROA D,
TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR.
2 . IBRAHIM S/O M UKBULSAB,
AGE: 32 YEARS ,
OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O.TIMMAPUR,
POST: ANAVATTI ,
TQ: SORA B,
DIST: SHIMOGGA
3 . UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE
COM.,LTD ., REPTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
BRANCH OFFICE,
2A, 2ND FLOOR,
84-RAMSON COMPLEX,
HOSUR,
P.B.ROAD, HUBLI .
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN MADANALLI ,A DV.
FOR SRI .NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV OCATE FOR R3)
(R1 N OTICE SERV ED)
(R2 DIS PENSED W ITH)
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 30.03.2013 PA SSED IN MVC
NO. 57/ 2012 ON THE FILE OF S ENIOR CIVIL JUD GE AND
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRSI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PEITION FOR OMPENS ATION AND SEEKIN
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION .
THESE APPEA LS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT , DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
4
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated
30.03.2013 passed by Senior Civil judge and member,
Additional, MACT, Sirsi, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in
MVC No.58/2012, this appeal is filed by claimant
seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Though these matters is listed for admission,
with consent, they are taken up for final disposal.
3. Sri. Vishwanath K. Bhat , Advocate for
Sri. Narayan G. Yaji, learned counsel for
claimant/appellant submitted that in an accident
occurred on 07.12.2012, when driver of autorikshaw
bearing registration No.KA-15/5837 drove it in rash
and negligent manner and dashed against motorcycle,
the riders sustained injuries. Despite taking treatment,
they did not recover fully. Claiming compensation for
same, they filed claim petitions against owner and
insurer of autorikshaw under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988.
4. On service of notice, claim petitions were
contested by insurer on all grounds. Age, occupation
and income of claimants as well as disability sustained
were disputed. Claim petitions were also opposed on as
being excessive.
5. After trial, tribunal held that accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of autorikshaw by its
driver and after assessing compensation passed award
granting Rs.25,000/- to claimant in MVC No.57/2012
and Rs.6,000/- to claimant in MVC No.58/2012 with
interest at 6% p.a. Tribunal, however, discharged
liability of insurer on the ground that insurer was not
intimated about transfer of ownership of vehicle by
insured.
6. Assailing the awards, claimants are in appeal.
It was submitted that claimants sustained grievous
injuries as indicated in wound certificates. But, tribunal
awarded meager compensation and sought
enhancement. It was submitted vehicle was insured
with respondent and even without any dispute, about
the insurance policy, tribunal had exonerated the
insurer. Insurer, had retained insurance premium even
after transfer of ownership and thus could not deny
compensation.
7. On the other hand, Sri Nagaraj C. Kolloori,
learned counsel for respondent-insurer supported the
award and opposed appeal. It was specifically
submitted that insured transferred ownership of vehicle
after issuance of insurance policy and not intimated
insurer of transfer of ownership of vehicle. Therefore,
tribunal was justified in discharging the insurer.
8. From above submission, occurrence of
accident due to rash and negligent driving by driver of
autorickshaw by its driver and claimant sustaining
injuries in accident is not in dispute. Tribunal assessed
compensation and passed award. Claimants are in
appeal challenging finding on liability as well as for
enhancement. Therefore, points that arise for
consideration in these appeals are:
1. "Whether tribunal was justified in
discharging liability of respondent
no.3-insurer?".
2. "Whether claimants are entitled for
enhancement of compensation as
sought for?".
Point No.1:
9. From a perusal of impugned judgment,
awards and record, it is seen that respondent no.3-
insurer has not taken any specific objection regarding
alienation of insured vehicle without intimation to it.
Tribunal while passing impugned award has not
assigned any specific reasons for discharging liability
of insurer. Admittedly, vehicle was insured and policy
was valid as on date of accident. Therefore,
discharging of liability of insurer would not be justified.
Point no.1 is answered in the negative. It is held that
insurer would be liable to pay compensation to
claimants.
Point no.2:-
10. In order to establish injuries and disability,
claimants produced wound certificates. From Ex.P4, it
is seen that claimant - Kiran sustained minimal defused
cerebral odema apart from bleeding from left ear.
Ex.P5 - wound certificate in respect of Satish
Shivagouda indicates that he sustained cut lacerated
wound of upper lip and nose. Claimants have not
examined doctor or produced any other material to
substantiate disability. Under circumstances, tribunal
assessed compensation on notional basis. Award
insofar as quantum of compensation is just and proper
and does not call for enhancement.
11. In the result, I pass following:
ORDER
a. Appeals are allowed in part.
b. Award passed by tribunal is modified
only to the extent of setting aside
dismissal of claim petition against
respondent no.3-insurer and holding
respondent no.3-insurer jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation
along with respondents no.1 and 2.
c. Award in all other respects passed by
tribunal is sustained.
Sd/-
JUDGE
A C/ p sg *
