Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shivaramreddy vs Sri. Mohammadda Raffik on 21 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21 S T DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A.No.100165/2018
C/W
M.F.A.No.100166/2018,
M.F.A No.102587/2017 &
M.F.A.No.102588/2017 (MV)
IN M.F.A.No.100165/2018
BET WEEN
THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
OPP: HDMC, HUB BALL I-5800 04,
REPRES ENTED THROU GH
ITS DIV IS IONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI SH IVARAMREDDY
S/O VENKAREDDY HADIMANI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: BU SINESS
AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOLI ITAGI,
TQ: SHIRAHATT I, DIST : GADAG,
NOW RESIDING AT HONNAT TI VILLA GE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI- 5601 01.
2 . SRI. MOHAMMADDA RAFFIK,
S/O B ABAJAN RANEBENNUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.2078, GU TTAL,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI- 560101,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M.HOSAMANI, ADV.FOR R1
SRI SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.07.2 017 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1012/ 2014 ON THE F ILE OF THE ADDL.SENIOR
CIVIL JU DGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIB UNAL, RANEBENNU R, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF ` 81,750/ - WITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A.
FROM THE DAT E OF PETIT ION T ILL ITS REALIZ ATION.
IN M.F.A.No.100166/2018
BET WEEN
THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
OPP: HDMC, HUB BALL I-5800 02,
REPRES ENTED THROU GH
ITS DIV IS IONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI HANU MANT HAPPA,
S/O SADEVAPPA CHAB B I,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER AND AGRICU LTU RE,
R/O: HOLI IT AGI,
TQ: SHIRAHATT I, DIST : GADAG,
NOW RESIDING AT HONNAT TI VILLA GE,
TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI- 5601 20.
2 . SRI. MOHAMMADDA RAFFIK,
S/O B ABAJAN RANEBENNUR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.2078, GU TTAL,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI- 560120.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M.HOSAMANI, ADV.FOR R1
SRI SHIVASAI M.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.07.2 017 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1013/ 2014 ON THE F ILE OF THE ADDL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMB ER, ADDL.MOT OR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
3
TRIB UNAL, RANEBENNU R, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
`1,47,000/- W ITH INTEREST AT 7% P.A. FROM THE DAT E OF
PET IT ION T ILL ITS REALIZ ATION.
IN M.F.A.No.102587/2017
BET WEEN
SRI SHIVARAMREDDY
S/O VENKAREDDY HADIMANI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: B U SINESS
AND AGRICU LTU RE, R/O: HOLI IT AGI,
TQ: SHIRAHAT T I, DIST: GADAG,
NOW RESID ING AT HONNATTI VILLA GE,
TQ: RANEB ENNU R, DIST: HAVERI- 560101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M.HOSAMANI, ADV.)
AND
1 . SRI. MOHAMMADDA RAFFIK,
S/O B ABAJAN RANEBENNUR,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF THE VEH ICLE,
R/O: H.NO.2078, GU TTAL,
TQ AND DIST:HAVERI- 560120.
2. THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
U NIT ED INDIA INSU RANCE COMPANY LIMIT ED,
OP P: HDMC, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.07.2 017 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1012/ 2014 ON THE F ILE OF THE ADDL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMB ER, ADDL.MOT OR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIB UNAL, RANEBENNU R, PARTLY ALLOW ING THE CLAIM
PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
4
IN M.F.A.No.102588/2017
BET WEEN
SRI HANU MANTHAPPA,
S/O SAHADEVAPPA CHABB I,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER AND AGRICU LTURE WORK,
R/O: HOL I ITAGI,
TQ: SHIRAHAT T I, DIST: GADAG,
NOW @ HANNATT I,
TQ: RANEB ENNU R, DIST: HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR M.HOSAMANI, ADV.)
AND
1 . SRI. MOHAMMADDA RAFFIK,
S/O B ABAJAN RANEBENNUR,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF THE VEH ICLE,
R/O: H.NO.2078, GU TTAL,
TQ AND DIST: HAVERI- 560120.
2. THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
U NIT ED INDIA INSU RANCE COMPANY LIMIT ED,
OP P: HDMC, HUBBALLI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.07.2 017 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1013/ 2014 ON THE F ILE OF THE ADDL.SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMB ER, ADDL.MOT OR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIB UNAL, RANEBENNU R, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE A PPEA LS COMING ON FOR ADMISS ION, T HIS
DAY THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLLOW ING:
5
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed by the insurer of the
offending vehicle and by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 01.07.2017 passed by the
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T.,
Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal',
for brevity) in MVC Nos.1012/2014 and 1013/2014.
2. Though these appeals are listed for
admission, with the consent of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for
final disposal. The parties are referred to by their
rankings before the Tribunal for the purpose of
convenience.
3. The undisputed facts of the case are, on
18.06.2014, the claimants herein were traveling in
Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing registration
No.KA-27/M-3214 from Ranebennur towards their
native village. When their vehicle reached Guttal on
Guttal-Ranebennur road, the offending lorry bearing
registration No.KA-27/B-2559 which was driven in a
rash and negligent manner dashed against the Bolero
vehicle in which the claimants were traveling and
caused the accident. In the said accident, the
claimants who were grievously injured were admitted
in a private hospital at Davanagere and treated for
their injuries. It is under these circumstances, the
claimants have filed two separate claim petitions in
MVC No.1012/2014 and MVC No.1013/2014 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, the 'Act') claiming compensation towards the
injury suffered by them in the road traffic accident
that had taken place on 18.06.2014. The said claim
petitions were partly allowed by the Tribunal and the
insurer of the offending lorry was directed to deposit
the compensation amount. Being aggrieved by the
same, the insurer of the offending lorry has preferred
MFA Nos.100165/2018 and 100166/2018 while the
claimants have filed MFA Nos.102587/2017 and
102588/2017 seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal.
4. Learned counsel for the insurer submits
that the driver of the offending lorry did not possess
valid and effective driving licence as on the date of
accident and therefore the Tribunal was not justified
in saddling the liability on the insurer to pay the
compensation. He submits that the name of the
person who was charge sheeted and the name found
in the driving licence produced by the claimants
before the Tribunal do not tally and therefore prima
facie it is doubtful that the driver of the offending
lorry had a valid and driving licence as on the date of
accident.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the claimants submits that the driver of the offending
lorry who was tried before the criminal court for the
alleged offences has been examined before the
Tribunal by the claimants as PW-4 and his driving
licence has been produced before the Tribunal, which
is marked as Ex.P16. He submits that therefore there
is no merit in the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the insurer that the driver of the
offending lorry had no valid and effective driving
licence as on the date of the accident. He submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
claimants compared to the injuries sustained and the
treatment undergone by them is meager and
accordingly prays to allow his appeal and dismiss the
appeals of the insurer.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to
the arguments addressed on both sides and also
perused the material available on record.
7. The undisputed facts of the case are that
on 18.06.2014 in a road traffic accident in which the
offending lorry bearing registration No.KA-27/B-2559
was involved, the claimants herein had suffered
grievous injuries and they have been treated for the
same as inpatient in a private hospital. It is not in
dispute that the offending lorry was insured by the
second respondent-insurer and as on the date of the
accident, the insurance policy was in force.
8. The claimants have examined the driver of
the offending lorry as PW-4 before the Tribunal and
also have produced his driving licence which is
marked as Ex.P16. It is not the case of the insurer
that the person who was tried before the criminal
court in C.C.No.1824/2014 and the person who was
examined before the Tribunal as PW-4 is not the
same person. The driving licence of the person, who
has been examined as PW-4 before the Tribunal, has
been produced and marked in the Tribunal. It is not
in dispute that PW-4 Irappa Hanumanthappa
Basaganni was the same person who was tried for the
alleged offences in C.C.No.1824/2014 before the
J.M.F.C. Court at Haveri, which was registered in
respect of the accident in question. Under the
circumstances, there is no merit in the contentions
urged by the learned counsel for the insurer that the
driver of the offending lorry did not possess a valid
and effective driving licence as on the date of the
accident. No contra evidence has been placed by the
insurer before the Tribunal to disbelieve that Ex.P16
is not the driving licence of PW-4, who was the driver
of the offending lorry as on the date of accident.
9. Under the circumstances, I do not find any
merit in the appeals filed by the insurer of the
offending lorry.
10. Insofar as appeals filed by the claimants
are concerned, the question that arises for
consideration in the said appeals is with regard to the
adequacy of compensation awarded to the claimants
by the Tribunal.
11. The claimant in M.V.C.No.1012/2014 was
aged about 69 years as on the date of the accident,
as could be seen from the wound certificate/Ex.P6.
The notional income of the claimant is required to be
considered at `7,500/ per month, having regard to
the income chart maintained by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority for the purpose of disposal
of the motor vehicle accident cases before the Lok
Adalat. The proper multiplier applicable having
regard to the age of the claimant would be '5'. The
Doctor PW-3 has deposed before the Tribunal that the
physical disability suffered by the claimant to the
particular limb was at 35%. Therefore, the whole
body disability is required to be considered at 12%.
In the said event, the claimant would be entitled for
a sum of `54,000/- towards loss of future income due
to disability. Having regard to the injuries suffered
and the treatment undergone for the same, the
claimant is entitled for a sum of `35,000/- towards
pain and suffering; `10,000/- towards incidental
expenses and `15,000/- towards loss of income
during laid-up period. In addition to the same, the
claimant is also entitled for `30,000/- towards loss of
amenities in future life. Therefore, in all, the
claimant in M.V.C.No.1012/2014 is entitled for a sum
of `1,44,000/- as against `81,750/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. In M.V.C.No.1013/2014, the claimant was
aged about 31 years. He had suffered the fracture of
tibia and fibula in addition to fracture of greater
tuberossity and the Doctor PW-3 who has issued the
disability certificate has stated that the disability
suffered by the claimant as a result of the injury to
the particular limb was at 40%. Therefore, the whole
body disability is required to be taken at 13%. The
notional income of the claimant even in this case is
required to be taken at `7,500/- per month and the
proper multiplier applicable would be '16'. In the
said event, the claimant would be entitled for a sum
of `1,87,200/- towards loss of future income due to
disability. Having regard to the nature of injuries and
the treatment undergone by the claimant, he is
entitled for a sum of `50,000/- towards pain and
suffering; `10,000/- towards incidental expenses and
` 22,500/- towards loss of income during laid-up
period. In addition to the same, the claimant is also
entitled for `30,000/- towards loss of amenities in
future life. Therefore, in all, the claimant in
M.V.C.No.1013/2014 is entitled for a sum of
`2,99,700/- as against `1,47,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
13. The enhanced amount of compensation
shall also carry interest at 6% per annum from the
date of petition till realization.
The insurer of the offending lorry bearing
registration No.KA-27/B-2559 is directed to deposit
the balance amount of compensation with interest
before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from
the date of receipt of the certified copy of this
judgment.
The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as it
relates to disbursement and deposit, etc., remains
unaltered and the same shall be applicable even to
the enhanced amount of compensation.
The amount in deposit in
M.F.A.Nos.100165/2018 and 100166/2018 is directed
to be transmitted to the Tribunal for the purpose of
disbursement.
Accordingly, M.F.A.Nos.100165/2018 and
100166/2018 filed by the insurer are dismissed.
M.F.A.Nos.102587/2017 and 102588/2017 filed by the
claimants are partly allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CLK /K N M / -
