Karnataka High Court
Shivamma vs Prashant And Anr on 7 February, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA.No.202509/2018
c/w
MFA.No.202510/2018 (MV)
MFA.No.202509/2018
BETWEEN:
01. NAGANATH @ NAGESH S/O SHARANAPPA PADNUR
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: EMPLOYEE
R/O: LACHAN TQ: INDI DIST: VIJAYAPUR
NOW R/O: MALLAYYA TEMPLE
JORAPUR PETH, VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. PRASHANT S/O RAVINDAR MUDHOL
AGE: MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: C/O: S. V.GURUNATH, ASHIRVAD NILAYA
SAI NAGAR, NEAR HEMAREDDY MALLAMMA TEMPLE
MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
02. THE MANAGER CLAIMS
THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: GOVT. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
BAGALKOT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
(SRI.MANJUNATH MALLAYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE
APPELLANT AND FASTENING THE LIABILITY TO RESPONDENT
NO.2 INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.08.2018 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI, AT VIJAYAPUR IN
MVC.NO.1087/2014.
MFA.NO.202510/2018
BETWEEN:
SHIVAMMA W/O RAJU KAMBLE
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: TAILORING
R/O: LACHAN TQ: INDI DIST: VIJAYAPUR
NOW R/O: HANUMAN TEMPLE
VENKATESH NAGAR,
VIJAYAPUR.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. PRASHANT S/O RAVINDAR MUDHOL
AGE: MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: C/O: S. V.GURUNATH, ASHIRVAD NILAYA
SAI NAGAR, NEAR HEMAREDDY MALLAMMA TEMPLE
MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
02. THE MANAGER CLAIMS
THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: GOVT. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE,
BAGALKOT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101. ... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
(SRI.MANJUNATH MALLAYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
3
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173 (1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE
APPELLANT AND FASTENING THE LIABILITY TO RESPONDENT
NO.2 INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.08.2018 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI, AT VIJAYAPUR IN
MVC.NO.1088/2014.
THESE APPEALS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 13.01.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation and also to fix the
liability on respondent No.2 - insurance company.
2. These appeals are arising out of common
judgment passed in MVC.Nos.1087/2014 and 1088/2014.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties are
referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
4. The claimants have contended that having
regard to the nature of injuries sustained by them, the
compensation granted is on the lower side and it needs to
be enhanced. They have also contended that the Tribunal
has erred in not fixing the liability on respondent No.2 by
holding that the claimants were gratuitous passengers.
However, in MVC.No.1239/2014 on the file of same
Tribunal, the liability is fastened on the respondent No.2 -
insurance company and in fact in MFA.No.201823/2017
arising out of the said MVC.1239/2014, the insurance
company has compromised before the Lok-Adalath and
satisfied the award and therefore, the claimants are also
seek liability to be fastened on the respondent No.2 -
insurance company.
5. The brief facts leading to filing of these
petitions are that on 20.01.2014 the claimants and others
were traveling in Swift Car bearing Reg.No.KA-28-0701
from Vijayapur to Lachan village on NH-13. When the Car
was near Agasanal village, the driver of the said Car
driving the same in a rash or negligent manner, suddenly
he applied brake to prevent running over a Dog which
suddenly passed across the road. As a result, suddenly
applying the brake, the Car turned turtle and claimants
sustained injuries.
6. In the objections respondent No.2 contended
that since, the Car in question was only for the personal
use of the its owner i.e., respondent No.1, as the
claimants were gratuitous passengers, respondent No.2 is
not liable indemnify the respondent No.1, for violation of
the terms and conditions of the policy.
7. After due enquiry, finding that both the
claimants have sustained only simple injuries and taking
into consideration the medical bills produced by them, the
Tribunal has granted global compensation i.e., in
MVC.No.1087/2014 it has granted global compensation in
a sum of `.38,420/- including medical expenses in a
`.18,420/-. Similarly, in MVC.No.1088/2014 it has granted
global compensation in a sum `.29,341/- including
medical expenses for a sum of `.9,331/-. Having regard to
the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants, I find no
reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation
granted by the Tribunal.
8. Now, coming to the question of liability. To
show that in respect of the same accident, award has been
passed against the respondent No.2, the claimants have
produced the certified copy of the judgment in
MVC.No.1239/2014 dated 01.04.2017 on the file of same
Tribunal. Against the said judgment and award, the
claimants have filed MFA.No.201823/2017. It is settled
before the Lok-Adalth on 09.12.2017 wherein the Lok-
Adalth has enhanced the compensation, which is evident
from certified copy of the said order. These two documents
goes to show that in respect of the said accident, the
respondent No.2 - insurance company has admitted its
liability and complied with the orders passed by the
Tribunal as well as this Court. In the circumstances, it has
become obligatory on the part of the respondent No.2 -
insurance company also to admit its liability. Therefore,
instead of fixing the liability on respondent No.1, I hold
that it is respondent No.2 - insurance company who is
liable to satisfy the compensation. To this extent the
impugned judgment and award is required to be modified.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
I. Both the appeals are allowed in part.
II. The judgment and award in
MVC.Nos.1087/2014 and 1088/2014 passed by
the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT-
VI, Vijayapur, insofar as quantum is concerned
are affirmed.
III. However, instead of respondent No.1, the
respondent No.2 - insurance company is
directed to pay the compensation with interest
at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its
realization, within a period of eight weeks from
the date of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
