Karnataka High Court
Chikkanna vs Mr Ravi G M on 7 January, 2021
Author: H T Byhtnpj
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.2824 OF 2013(MV)
BETWEEN:
CHIKKANNA
S/O LATE. KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT KEMPASHETTY DODDI
BYRAMANGALA POST
BIDADI HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK-562160.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.K.SHANTHARAJ, ADV.)
AND
1. MR. RAVI G.M.
S/O G.P. MADAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT NO.14, HALE GABBADI
HAROHALLI POST
RAMANAGARAM TALUK-562 117.
2. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR
2
SRI. BALAJI NO.132
BRIGADE ROAD
BANGALORE-560 025.
... 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: 09.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.576/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, RAMANAGARA, 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 09.01.2013 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 21.06.2008 at about 9.15
p.m., the claimant was sitting in front of his house, at
that time, a Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42-3555
being driven by its driver, from Bidadi side at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed
against the roadside electric pole which fell on the
cattle shed, due to the said impact, cattle died and
house of the claimant was damaged.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section
166 of the Act on the ground of death of his cow and
also his house was damaged. It was pleaded that he
also spent huge amount towards repair of his house.
It was further pleaded that the accident occurred
purely on account of rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, respondent No.2
appeared through its counsel and filed written
statement in which the averments made in the
petition were denied. It was pleaded that the driver of
the offending vehicle was not holding valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of accident. It
was further pleaded that the compensation claimed by
the claimant is excessive and imaginary. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.1 did not appear before the
Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed
ex-parte.
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 another witness as PW-2 and
got exhibited 9 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On
behalf of the respondents, neither any witness was
examined 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, cow of the claimant died and his
house was damaged. The Tribunal further held that
the claimant is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.1,15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. and directed the owner of the vehicle, respondent
No.1 to deposit the compensation amount along with
interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
raised the following contentions.
Firstly, as on the date of accident the insurance
policy was existing, the Tribunal has given a finding
that there is no policy coverage to the offending
vehicle. As on the date of accident, Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-42-3555 was having effective policy, the
Tribunal has fastened liability on owner of the vehicle,
which is contrary to law.
Secondly, due to the accident there is severe
damages to the house of the claimant and cow which
was giving 10 liters of milk per day has died. He has
produced estimation of Rs.3,50,000/- as per Ex.P9.
Over all compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, he sought for
allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
Insurance Company has not disputed about the
vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-42/3555 having coverage
of insurance policy.
Secondly, the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and reasonable. Even though the
claimant has produced Ex.P9, estimation report
regarding repair of his house for Rs.3,50,000/-, the
Tribunal after considering the materials available on
record and evidence of the parties, has rightly
assessed the compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. 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.
9. It is not in dispute that due to accident the
claimant's house has damaged and cow died in a road
traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Since
the offending vehicle was covered with insurance
policy, the same is not disputed by the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company. The insurer is
liable to pay the compensation.
10. In respect of quantum of compensation is
concerned, considering the evidence of the parties and
estimation-Ex.P9 and considering the evidence of
PW.2 and charge sheet-Ex.P5, I am of the opinion that
global compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has to be
awarded with 6% interest.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest at 6%
p.a. within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment.
To the aforesaid extent, the judgment of the
Claims Tribunal is modified.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mkm/-
