Karnataka High Court
Shriram General Insurance Co, Ltd vs Shivappa S/O Galeppe on 4 December, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.23068/2013
C/W M.F.A.No.23067/2013 (MV)
IN MFA No.23068/ 2013
BETWEEN:
SHRIRAM GENERA L INSURAN CE CO.LTD.,
E-8, EPI P, RIICO, SITAPUR, JAI PUR,
RAJASTHAN - 302022,
R/BY ITS AUTHORI ZED SIGNAT ORY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADV OCATE)
AND
1. SRI SHIVAPPA S/O GALEPPE,
AGE: 22 YEARS , OCC: PIG-BUSINES S,
R/O GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPA L.
2. SRI SIDDAPPA AN GADI S/O SANGA PPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O BHAKS HI GA LLI, GADAG,
TQ: & DIST: GADA G.
3. SRI KANAKAPPA S /O SUNKA PPA HAV ERI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O H.No .416A , RAGHAVENDRA NA GAR,
NARAASAPUR, BET AGERI T Q.,
DISTRICT: GADAG.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMA NTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV .FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DI SPENSED WITH;
NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFI CIENT)
2
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 16.02.2013 PA SSED IN MVC
NO.333/ 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFI CER,
FAST TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T-IX, BA LLARI,
AWARDING COM PENSATION OF RS.2,89,040/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DA TE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
IN MFA No.23067/ 2013
BETWEEN:
SHRIRAM GENERA L INSURAN CE CO.LTD.,
E-8, EPI P, RIICO, SITAPUR, JAI PUR,
RAJASTHAN - 302022,
R/BY ITS AUTHORI ZED SIGNAT ORY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADV OCATE)
AND
1. SRI SHIVAPPA S/O GALEPPE,
AGE: 22 YEARS , OCC: PIG-BUSINES S,
R/O GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPA L.
2. SRI SIDDAPPA AN GADI,
S/O SANGA PPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O BHAKS HI GA LLI, GADAG,
TQ: & DIST: GADA G.
3. SRI KANAKAPPA ,
S/O SUNKA PPA HA VERI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O H.No .416A ,
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,
NARAASAPUR, BET AGERI T Q.,
DISTRICT: GADAG.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMA NTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV .FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 DI SPENSED WITH;
NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFI CIENT)
3
THIS MISC.FIRST APPEAL IS FI LED UNDER SECTION
173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES A CT, 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND A WARD DATED 16.02.2013 PA SSED IN MVC
NO.334/ 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFI CER,
FAST TRACK COURT-I AND MEMBER, M.A.C.T-IX, BA LLARI,
AWARDING COM PENSATION OF RS.1,15,000/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DA TE OF
PETITION TILL ITS DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEA LS COMING ON F OR HEARING ON I .A .
THIS DAY, T HE COURT, DELIVERED T HE F OLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging common judgment and award dated
16.02.2013 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track
Court-I and Member, M.A.C.T., Ballari (for short, 'the
tribunal') in MVC Nos.333 and 334 of 2012, these
appeals are filed.
2. Though the matters are listed for hearing on
interim application, with the consent of learned
counsel, they are taken up for final disposal.
3. Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori, learned counsel for
appellant-insurer submitted that in an accident that
occurred on 28.12.2011 when lorry bearing registration
no.KA-26/7608 dashed to a roadside tree, claimant
traveling in lorry sustained grievous injuries. It was
submitted that as per assertion of claimant, lorry was
transporting 120 pigs belonging to claimant from
Gulbarga for sale in Mangalore. Out of same, 40 pigs
died and remaining had sustained injuries. Two
separate claim petitions were filed, one claiming
compensation for personal injuries and another
claiming compensation for loss suffered on account of
death of 40 pigs and injuries to other pigs.
4. On service of notice, driver and owner of
lorry did not participate and were placed ex-parte.
Respondent no.3-insurer filed objections opposing
claim petition on all counts. Insurer had taken specific
objection that there was violation of terms and
conditions of policy as the live-stock was transported
in lorry without obtaining specific permit for same.
5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues.
Thereafter claimant examined himself as PW1. He also
examined Dr.M.J.Shashidhara Reddy as PW2. Exhibits
P1 to P119 were marked. On behalf of respondents, an
official of insurer was examined as RW1 and copy of
insurance policy was marked as Ex.R1.
6. On consideration, tribunal held that accident
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by
lorry driver. Issuance of insurance policy possession of
driving licence by driver of lorry was held established.
Tribunal held insurer was liable to pay compensation.
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,89,040/- for injuries
sustained by claimant and Rs.1,15,000/- towards loss
caused on account of death of 40 pigs and injuries to
80 pigs. Assailing award, insurer has filed two separate
appeals.
7. Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori, learned counsel
submitted that vehicle was a goods vehicle; no permit
was obtained for transportation of live-stock. As no
permit was obtained, claimant traveling in said vehicle
has to be considered as unauthorized passenger which
would discharge liability of insurer.
8. Insofar as MVC no.334/2012, it was
submitted that except stating that vehicle was
transporting 120 pigs in lorry, absolutely no other
documents were produced to establish that vehicle was
indeed carrying 120 pigs. It was also contended that
claimant failed to establish value of animals that died
and drop in value of animals that sustained injuries in
the accident. In the absence of same, award passed by
tribunal valuing Rs.1,500/- per dead pig and total sum
of Rs.55,000/- towards injured animals was without
any basis and was excessive. On above grounds,
learned counsel sought for allowing appeals.
9. On the other hand, Sri Hanumanthareddy
Sahukar, learned counsel for claimant-respondent
supported the award and opposed insurer's appeals. It
was submitted that live-stock are included in the
definition of goods under sub-section (13) of Section 2
of Motor Vehicles Act and as vehicle in question was a
goods vehicle, carriage of live-stock in vehicle is not
disputed, claimant would not be an unauthorized
passenger. Therefore, contention of appellant-insurer
does not merit consideration. It was submitted that
tribunal on consideration of the same had passed
impugned award and same does not call for
interference.
10. From above submission, occurrence of
accident due to rash and negligent driving by its driver
and claimant sustaining injuries therein was not in
dispute. Issuance of policy and its validity on date of
accident is not in dispute. Claimant is not in appeal.
Insurer is in appeal challenging award insofar as
finding on liability. Therefore, point that arises for
consideration in MFA No.23068/2013 is:
"Whether tribunal was justified in holding
insurer liable to pay compensation?"
11. At the outset definition of goods as per sub-
section (13) of Section 2 reads as follows:
(13) "goods" includes live-stock, and
anything (other than equipment ordinarily
used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle
except living persons, but does not include
luggage or personal effects carried in a motor
car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or
the personal luggage of passengers traveling
in the vehicle;
In view of above, it is very clear that live-stock is
included within 'goods' defined under the Act. It is not
in dispute that vehicle transporting live-stock was a
goods carriage. Therefore, carriage of live-stock in
goods carriage cannot be held to be illegal or in
violation of terms and conditions of policy. Further, as
claimant was traveling in lorry along with goods as
owner of goods which was permitted under Section 147
(1) (b)(i), claimant cannot be said to be unauthorized
passenger. Hence, point for consideration is answered
in the affirmative.
12. Insofar as challenge to the award in MVC
No.334/2012, it was submitted by learned counsel Sri
Nagaraj C.Kolloori that except stating number of
animals being carried in vehicle and number of animals
that died in the accident as stated by claimant in
complaint, absolutely no other documents were
produced to establish number of animals that died,
nature of extent of injury sustained by remaining and
also value of dead animals and reduction in value of
injured animals. Claimant has also not produced any
documents regarding permission of animals. Sri
Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for
respondent submitted that there was a clear mention in
the complaint about total number of animals being
transported in the vehicle. After due investigation,
police filed charge sheet against driver of lorry.
Number of animals shown in charge sheet is 120 which
corroborate claimant's case. But it is indeed seen that
there is no evidence about of extent of injuries
sustained by animals and reduction of their value.
Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- for 40 animals
valuing them at Rs.1,500/- each. Tribunal has awarded
total of Rs.55,000/- for 80 injured pigs, i.e. Rs.687/-
per pig which would be nearly 50% of their value.
Claimant has not even made any assertion regarding
extent of loss of value on account of injuries sustained
by pigs. In the absence of such pleading and evidence,
award of Rs.687/- per injured animal would be
excessive and unsustainable. If loss of value of pigs is
taken notionally at 25% then compensation for injured
pigs would be Rs.1,500 x 25% x 80 = Rs.30,000/-.
Therefore as amount awarded by tribunal at
Rs.20,000/- towards treatment, Rs.25,000/- towards
loss sustained and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation
being without any pleading or evidence, same cannot
be sustained. It would be just and proper to award
Rs.30,000/- as determined above. Hence point no.2 for
consideration is answered partly in the affirmative.
13. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. MFA No.23068/2013 is dismissed.
ii. MFA No.23067/2013 is allowed in part.
The compensation is reduced from
Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.90,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal.
iii. Amount in deposit are ordered to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for
payment forthwith.
iv. Award in all other respect is affirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
