Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Suresh S/O. Koteppa Malagi on 17 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. CROB No.100015/2018
C/W M.F.A.No.101775/2017 (MV)
IN MFA CROB No.100015/ 2018
BET WEEN
SU RESH S/O KOTEPPA MALAGI,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICU LTU RE AND
COOLIE, NOW NILL,
R/O: KU SAGUR VILLAGE,
RANEB ENNUR,
TQ: RANEB ENNU R,
DIST: HAVER I- 581115.
...CROSS OB JECTOR
(BY SRI G.S.HULMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. NAGAPPA,
S/O NILLAPPA GIR IY AP PANAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: VALMIKI NAGAR,
GU TTAL VILLAGE,
TQ: HAVERI,
DIST: HAVER I-58110 8.
2. THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
NAT IONAL INSU RANCE CO. LT D.,
OP P: P.B. ROAD,
NEAR B ASAVA VANA,
HUBB ALLI-5800 20.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI N.R.KU PPELU R, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
2
THIS M ISCELLA NEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS-
OB JECTION IN MFA NO.101775/ 2017 IS FILED UNDER
ORDER 41 RU LE 22 OF C.P.C., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 15. 03.2017 PASS ED IN MVC
No.291/ 2015 ON THE FIL E OF T HE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDIT IONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIB UNAL, RANEBENNU R, PARTLY ALLOW ING THE CLAIM
PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.101 775/2017
BET WEEN
THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
OPP: P.B . ROAD,
NEAR B ASAVA VANA,
HU BB ALLI-580020.
...APPEL LANT
(BY SRI N.R.KU PPELU R, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SURESH S/O KOT EPPA MALAGI,
AGE: 27 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTU RE and COOLIE,
R/O: KUSAGU R VILLAGE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR,
DIST: HAVER I.
2 . NAGAPPA,
S/O NILLAPPA GIR IY AP PANNAVAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: VALMIKI NAGAR,
GU TTAL VILLAGE,
TALUKA and DIST : HAVERI.
(OWNER OF THE MAHINDRA T EMPO
NO. KA-27/4613)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GIRISH S.HU LMANI, ADVOCAT E FOR R1;
R2-HELD SU FFICIENT)
3
THIS MFA FILED U /S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, AGA INST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
15.03.2017 PASS ED IN MVC NO.291/2015 ON T HE F ILE OF
THE II-ADDIT ION AL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMB ER,
ADDIT IONAL M OT OR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIB U NAL,
RANEB ENNUR, AWARDING COMPENS ATION OF R s.1,11,100/-
WITH INT EREST A T 6% P.A. FROM T HE DATE OF PET IT ION
TILL ITS REALISAT ION.
THIS MFA CROSS-OB JECTION AND APP EAL COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY T HE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal and the cross-objection are filed by
the insurer of the offending vehicle and the claimant
challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
15.03.2017 passed by the Court of II Addl.Senior
Civil Judge and Addl.M.A.C.T., Ranebennur
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity)
in MVC No.291/2015.
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that
on 05.01.2015 at about 5.30 p.m. when the claimant
was walking from Devaragudda to Ranebennur, the
offending Mahindra tempo bearing registration
No.KA-27/4613 which was driven in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against him and caused the
accident. In the said accident, claimant had suffered
multiple injuries and he was treated as an inpatient.
It is under these circumstances, he had filed a claim
petition in MVC No.291/2015 under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act'),
which was partly allowed by the Tribunal and a
compensation amount of `1,11,040/- was awarded
with interest at 6% per annum from the date of
petition till realization and the 2 n d respondent-insurer
of the offending tempo was saddled with the liability
to pay the compensation. On the ground that the
driver of the tempo did not have a valid licence to
drive the vehicle as on the date of accident, the
insurer of the offending tempo has filed an appeal
while the cross-objection has been filed by the
claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation
amount.
3. Learned counsel for the insurer submits
that the driver of the offending vehicle was
possessing only a light motor vehicle (non-transport)
driving licence as on the date of accident and he was
found driving a transport vehicle and therefore the
Tribunal was not justified in saddling the liability to
pay the compensation on the insurer of the offending
vehicle.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the claimant submits that having regard to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance
Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663,
the driver of the offending vehicle was driving a
similar class of vehicle and therefore the insurer of
the offending vehicle cannot be exonerated of its
liability. He submits that the compensation awarded
to the claimant on all heads is on the lower side and
accordingly he prays to enhance the same.
5. The undisputed facts of the case are that in
the accident that had occurred on 05.01.2015, the
Mahindra tempo bearing registration No.KA-27/4613
was involved and in the said accident, the claimant
had suffered grievous injuries. The material on record
would go to show that the claimant had suffered
fracture of right clavicle and other simple injuries.
The Tribunal had awarded total compensation of
`1,11,040/- to the claimant with interest. The insurer
of the offending tempo who had been saddled with
the liability to pay the compensation has preferred
the appeal challenging the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the
driver of the offending tempo did not possess valid
and effective driving licence to drive light motor
vehicle (transport) as on the date of accident, but
admittedly the driver of the offending tempo was
possessing light motor vehicle (non-transport)
driving licence as on the date of accident. Under the
circumstances having regard to the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan, the Tribunal was fully justified in
saddling the liability on the insurer of the offending
vehicle to pay the compensation to the claimant.
Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal filed by the
insurer.
6. The cross-objection has been filed by the
claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal. The doctor who was
examined as PW2 has spoken about the injury
suffered by the claimant and the treatment
undergone by him. He had assessed the disability to
the particular limb at 18%. The Tribunal has taken
the same to the whole body at 5%. Having regard to
the nature of fracture, I am of the view that the
disability assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper.
Since the accident is of the year 2015, the notional
income of the claimant ought to have been taken at
`8,000/- per month having regard to the income chart
maintained by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority
for the purpose of disposal of motor accident cases in
the Lok Adalath. The proper multiplier applicable in
this case would be '18'. In the said event, the
claimant would be entitled for a compensation of
`86,400/- towards loss of future income due to
disability.
7. Towards pain and suffering, the claimant is
entitled for a sum of `30,000/- as against `15,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The compensation of `440/-
awarded towards medical expenses remain unaltered.
The claimant is entitled for a sum of `16,000/-
towards loss of income during laid up period as
against `7,000/-. The claimant is also entitled for a
sum of `30,000/- towards loss of amenities in future
life as against `5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In
all, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation
of `1,70,840/- as against `1,11,040/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall
also carry interest at 6% per annum.
8. The insurer of the offending tempo is
directed to deposit the balance amount of
compensation with interest. The amount in deposit in
MFA No.101775/2017 is directed to be transferred to
the Tribunal for the purpose of disbursement.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal filed by
the insurer is dismissed and the cross-objection filed
by the claimant is partly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK
