M/S Cholamandalam Ms General ... vs Ningappa @ Lingappa S/O. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 396 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 DHARWAD BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 07 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA

             M.F.A.NO.23930/2012 (MV)
                       C/W
            MFA.CROB.NO.933/2013 (MV)

IN M.F .A.NO.23930/2012 (MV)

BETWEEN :

M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INSU RANCE CO.LTD., B Y IT S MANAGER,
DARE HOU SE, 2 N D FLOOR,
N.S.C.BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI,
(INSURED AT B RANCH OFFICE :
S.R.COMPLEX, BENDOORVELLI,
MANGALORE, REPRESENTED B Y THE
SENIOR MANAGER ( CLAIMS),
CHOLAMANDALAM M.S.GENERAL
INSU RANCE CO.LTD., NO.135/5,
2 N D FLO OR, 5 T H CROSS, J.P.NAGAR,
3 R D PHAS E, B ANGALORE- 560078.
                                          ..... APPELLANT
(B Y SHRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV.)

AN D :

1. NINGA PPA @ L INGAPPA
   S/O THIMMAPPA,
   AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTU RE
   CUM MILK VENDOR,
   R/O SHANAVASAPU RA VILLAGE,
   SIRU GU PPA TALU KA, DIST: B ELLARY.

2. CHANNA KESHAVAIAH
   S/O CHANNAIAH,
                            :2:



  AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
  CUM OWNER OF THE LORRY
  B EARYING REG.NO.KA-13/A-2280,
  R/O KENDENNEKAVALU VILLAG E,
  ARAKALAGU DU TALUK,
  HASSAN DIST.
                                     ..... RESPONDENTS

(B Y SHRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV. FOR R.1 : R2- NOTICE AWAITED.)

THIS APPEAL IS F ILED U NDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988 PRAYIN G TH IS COURT TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.05.2012 PASSED B Y THE MEMB ER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIB UNAL, B ELLARY IN MVC.NO.1022/ 2011 WITH CO ST IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA .CROB.NO.933/2013 (MV)

BETWEEN :

NINGAPPA @ L INGAPPA S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED AB OU T 42 YEARS, R/O SHANAVASAPURA VILLAGE, SIRUGUP PA T ALU K, B ELLARY DISTRICT.

..... CROSS OB JECTOR (B Y SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV.)

AN D :

1. CHANNA KESHAVAIAH S/O CHANNAIAH, AGE : 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER CUM OWNER OF THE LORRY B EARING REG.NO. KA-13/A- 2280, R/O KENDENNEKAVALU VILLAG E, ARAKALAGU DU TALUK, HASSAN DIST.

2. THE MANAGER, M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DARE HOUSE ROAD, CHENNAI (INSU RED AT B RANCH OFFICE,

S.R.COMPLEX , B ENDOORWE LL, MANGALORE.

..... RESPONDENTS

(NOTICE TO R.1-DIS PENSED WITH : BY SHRI S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R.2.)

THIS CROSS OBJ ECT ION IS FILED U NDER XLI RULE 22 OF THE CODE OF CIV IL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING THIS COURT TO ALLO W THIS CROSS OB JECTION AND AWARD COMPENSATION A S PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PET IT ION IN MVC.NO.1022/ 2011 ON THE FILE OF THE MACT -II, BELLARY DATED 04.05.2012 AND PASS SUCH OT HER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'B LE COU RT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, IN T HE INTER EST OF J USTICE AND EQU ITY .

THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OB JECTION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, T HIS DAY, T HE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLL OWING:

: JUDGMEN T :

The Insurance company is in appeal challenging

the award of the Tribunal by which sum of

Rs.1,48,500/- with interest at the rate of 8% per

annum from the date of the petition till the date of

deposit is granted to the claimant and the Tribunal

has also by the very same award permitted the

Insurance Company to recover the award amount

from the owner of the vehicle.

2. The fact that, an accident occurred is not in

dispute and the fact that, the vehicle was insured is

also not in dispute. The only contention advanced by

the Insurance Company is that, the Driver of the

offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective

driving licence.

3. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that,

since the Insurance Company took up the plea that it

was a case of breach of policy conditions, they were

required to deposit the compensation and thereafter

recover the said sum from the owner.

4. This proposition of law is now settled by the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Pappu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and

another reported in (2018) 3 Supreme Court

Cases 208. There is therefore no infirmity in the

order passed by the Tribunal and the appeal being the

devoid of merit is dismissed.

5. The claimant has also preferred a cross

objection seeking for enhancement.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel

for the cross objectors that the amount awarded

under the head of pain and suffering in a sum of

Rs.15,000/- and the amount awarded under the head

of loss of amenities in sum of Rs.10,000/- are on the

lower side.

7. It is not in dispute that the Doctor who

treated the claimant has not been examined and the

Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the

claimant has suffered only Haemorrhagic contusions

in the LT Parietal lobe mild cerebral edema and that,

it would be just and proper to award sum of

Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and sum of

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities.

8. In my view, the amount awarded by the

Tribunal on the above mentioned heads are adequate

and do not call for any enhancement.

9. Hence, the cross objection is also

accordingly dismissed.

10. The amount, if any, in deposit, shall stand

transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for

disbursement in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM