Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatesh Naidu @ Venkatesh N vs Sri. Taneem Mohammed Nawaz on 18 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.1626 OF 2015 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU,
SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
1(a) SMT. RANGANAYAKAMMA
W/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
1(b) PURUSHOTHAM
S/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
1(c) RAJESHWARI
D/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
1(d) TULASI RAM
S/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(e) SRI. KUMAR
S/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
1(f) SRI CHANDRASHEKAR
2
S/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
1(g) HEMAVATHI
D/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
1(h) MANJULA
D/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
1(j) SARASWATHI
D/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
1(k) GURUDATTA
S/O LATE VENKATESH NAIDU @ VENKATESH.N.,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.675/3, B.B. GARDEN,
I MAIN, KILLE MOHALLA,
MYSURU CITY & DISTRICT-570004.
AS THE APPELLANT UN SOUNDED MIND
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. TANEEM MOHAMMED NAWAZ
S/O TAZ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
R/AT MIG-23, OLD MYSURU BANGALORE ROAD,
SUBHASHNAGARA, MYSURU CITY.
(DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE
MOTOR BIKE NO.KA-09-ER-3011)
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.42/1, CHANDRA COMPLEX,
FIRST FLOOR, KALIDASA ROAD,
V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
(INSURER OF THE MOTOR BIKE
NO.KA-09-ER-3011)
3
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.42/1, CHANDRA COMPLEX,
FIRST FLOOR, KALIDASA ROAD,
V.V. MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
(INSURER OF THE MOTOR BIKE
NO.KA-55-K-4725)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NOs.2 AND 3;
SERVICE OF NOTICE ON RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED
WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 12.08.2015)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.11.2014 PASSED IN
MVC NO.209/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU IN CONCURRENT CHARGE
OF ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MACT, MYSURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru (In the Court of the Additional
Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru)
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in
M.V.C.No.209/2013 in terms of the Judgment and Award
dated 29.11.2014.
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, it is
taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
3. Parties will henceforth be referred to as they
were arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 discloses that on 20.10.2012
at about 5.15 p.m., the claimant was riding pillion on the
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-55-K-4725 and
when he along with his son was traveling from
Lakshmipuram first main to Hullina Beedi and was waiting
to cross Narayanashastry road, respondent No.1, who was
the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.
KA-09-ER-3011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending
vehicle') ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner
came from Siddappa Square towards Nanjumalige and
dashed against the motorcycle on which the claimant was
riding pillion. Due to the impact, the claimant fell down
from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries on his
head, fracture of leg, injuries to his chest and other parts
of the body. He was immediately shifted to Kamakshi
Hospital, Mysuru, where he was administered first aid.
Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to Vikram Jeev
hospital, Mysore, where he was treated as an inpatient
from 20.10.2012 to 16.11.2012 and thereafter, he was
shifted to Kamakshi hospital, Mysuru where he was an
inpatient from 16.11.2012 to 06.01.2013. It is stated that
the claimant had spent a sum of Rs.7,70,000/- towards his
medical expenses. The claimant claimed that he was doing
cushion work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due
to the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability
which deprived him of his income and thus, he claimed a
compensation of a sum of Rs.20,40,000/- from the owner
and insurer of the offending vehicle as well as the insurer
of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-55-K-4725.
5. The claim petition was contested by the owner
of the offending vehicle, who admitted the occurrence of
the accident, and claimed that he was not negligent but
the claimant himself was negligent and was responsible for
the accident. He contended that the offending vehicle was
insured with respondent No.2 - insurer as on the date of
the accident and it was liable to pay the compensation.
before the Tribunal) of both the vehicles involved in the
accident filed objections and contended that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle
on which the claimant was riding pillion and hence, it was
not liable to pay the compensation. It admitted that the
offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent.
It however contended that the liability, if proved was
limited to the terms and conditions of the policy and
denied that the riders of both the vehicles involved in the
accident possessed valid licence as on the date of the
accident. It claimed that the interest that may be awarded
by the Court should not exceed 6% per annum.
7. Based on these rival contentions, the claim
petition was set down for trial. The son of the claimant was
examined as PW.1 and the Doctor who treated the
claimant was examined as PW.2 and they marked
documents Exs.P1 to P19. The insurer and the owner of
the offending vehicle did not adduce any evidence but
marked a copy of the insurance policy as Ex.R1 by
consent.
8. The Tribunal considered the evidence on record
and held that the rider of the offending vehicle was
negligent and was responsible for the accident. Having
regard to the age of the claimant and the expenses
incurred for his treatment, the Tribunal awarded the
following compensation:
Sl. Heads under which Amount in
No. compensation is awarded Rupees
1 Medicines and Treatment 1,37,650/-
2 Loss of income 21,790/-
3 Future loss of income 21,800/-
4 Pain and suffering 20,000/-
5 Conveyance and special diet 10,000/-
Total 2,11,240/-
9. The Tribunal directed the insurer of the
offending vehicle to pay the compensation along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded, the claimant had filed the present
appeal. However, during the pendency of the appeal the
claimant expired on 31.10.2015 and on the application of
his legal representatives, they were permitted to come on
record in terms of the order of this Court dated
04.01.2021. It is not the case of the legal representatives
of the deceased that the appellant - claimant died due to
the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore,
the legal representatives of the appellant are not entitled
to pursue this appeal to claim compensation for the
actionable negligence by the rider of the offending vehicle
as such a relief was personal to the appellant only. In view
of the Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case
of KANNAMMA vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
KSRTC., [ILR 1990 Karnataka 300] and another Judgment
of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of UTTAM
KUMAR vs. MADHAV AND ANOTHER [ILR 2002 KAR
1864], it is clear that the legal representatives of the
appellant are not entitled to pursue this appeal.
Hence this Appeal is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of this appeal, I.A. No.1/2021
for production of additional documents does not survive for
consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma
