Sri K K Veerendrakumar vs Sri K P Somashekara
2021 Latest Caselaw 397 Kant

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                     BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD

            MFA No.5992 OF 2013(MV)

BETWEEN:

SRI. K.K.VEERENDRAKUMAR
S/O KOMARAPPA
AGE 38 YEARS
R/AT KITHOOR VILLAGE
KODLIPET HOBLI, SOMWARPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-571231.
                                    ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI.PRASANNA V.R., ADV. )

AND

1.    SRI. K.P SOMASHEKARA
      S/O LATE PUTTASWMY
      AGED 31 YEARS
      OCC: AUTO DRIVER
      R/AT KYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE
      SHANIVARASANTHE HOBLI
      SOMWARPET TALUK
      KODAGU DISTRICT-571 427.

2.    RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
      BRANCH INSURANCE OFFICE
      MYSORE TRADE CENTER
                            2



     1ST FLOOR, L-36/D
     IN FRONT OF KSRTC BUS STAND
     MYSORE-570 001.
     REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
                               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ, ADV. FOR R2:
R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV   ACT    AGAINST   THE JUDGMENT         AND AWARD
DATED:09.04.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.140/2012 ON
THE FILE OF THE AD-HOC DISTRICT JUDGE, AND
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, KODAGU,
MADIKERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.


     THIS    MFA    COMING     ON    FOR     ADMISSION,
THROUGH     VIDEO     CONFERENCE,     THIS    DAY,   THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                      JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the claimant being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.04.2013 passed

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 27.06.2012 at about 7.00

p.m., the claimant was proceeding in an Auto-

rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-12/A-4838 being

driven by its driver, near Honnekoppalu Junction at a

high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, due

to the said impact, Auto-rickshaw turtled down. As a

result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant

sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act on the ground that he was aged about

37 years, was doing business and was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month. It was pleaded that he also

spent huge amount towards medical expenses,

conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the

accident occurred purely on account of the rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

4. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1

and 2 appeared through their counsel and respondent

No.2 only filed detailed objection in which the

averments made in the petition were denied. It was

pleaded that the claimant is the owner of the Auto-

Rickshaw and he is not the third party, the Tribunal

has jurisdiction only to entertain the 3rd party. It was

further pleaded that the petition is also misconceived,

as under Section 166 of MV Act only third party claims

can be preferred and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

The age, avocation and income of the claimant,

medical expenses incurred by the claimant are denied.

It was further pleaded that the quantum of

compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant.

Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Gangu Hiral S. as PW-2 and

got exhibited 16 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16.

On behalf of the respondents, neither examined any

witness nor marked any documents. The Claims

Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held

that the accident took place on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver,

as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries.

The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled

to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant has

contended that, due to the accident the claimant has

suffered grievous injuries. The Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs.1,27,100/- even though he has

claimed total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and

Tribunal has fixed liability on the Insurance Company

only to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The same is

contrary to the materials available on record. Hence,

he sought for allowing the appeal.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company has contended that, the

claimant is the owner of the offending vehicle. Since

personal claim for P.A. coverage is limited only to

Rs.1,00,000/-, the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability

on the Insurance Company to the extent of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal

and original records.

9. It is not in dispute that the claimant has

suffered injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on

27.06.2012.

The insured, as per policy has paid extra

premium of Rs.100/- for personal coverage. In view

of the policy conditions, the claimant is entitled for

compensation only to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly fixed liability on the

Insurance Company only to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-

with 6% interest.

The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal

is confirmed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

Mkm                             JUDGE