Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ramlingappa S/O Somappa ... vs Sri. Basappa S/O Nagappa Yenagi on 30 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 20903 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20903 OF 2011 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMLINGAPPA S/O SOMAPPA KADAKOL,
AEG: 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, NOW NIL,
R/O ANIGOL, TAL: BAILHONGAL - 591 102,
DIST :BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAPPA S/O NAGAPPA YENAGI,
AGE: MAJOR (CORRECT AGE NOT KNOWN),
OCC: BUSINESS, R/O KORVIKOPPA,
TQ: BAILHONGAL - 591 102,
DIST: BELGAUM (OWNER OF TRAX VEHICLE
NO.KA24/2680)
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
Digitally signed
by SUJATA
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHANBAG CHAMBER,
SUBHASH
PAMMAR
Location:
KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELGAUM - 590 016.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
3. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O FAKKIRAPPA TALLUR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN
R/O: INGALAGI, TQ: SAUNDATTI-591126
DIST:BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SMT. RATNAMALA G. H., ADV., FOR
SRI. B. M. ANGADI, ADV., FOR R2;
-2-
MFA No. 20903 of 2011
SRI. GIRISH S HIREMATH, ADV., FOR R3;
R1 - NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT,
1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.09.2009
PASSED IN MVC NO.2828/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER
MACT, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDER, FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the claimant calling in
question the correctness of the judgment and award dated
25.09.2009 in MVC No.2828/2006 on the file of the
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal (for
short "the Tribunal").
2. The brief facts are that on 12.03.2005 at about
7.15 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding on bicycle as a
pillion rider, near Anigol Bus stop, a trax bearing registration
No.KA-24/2680 with its driver driving it in a rash and
negligent manner and in high speed, came and dashed
MFA No. 20903 of 2011
against the bicycle on account of which claimant suffered
serious injuries.
3. Upon clam petition being filed, the owner of the
trax vehicle remained ex-parte. The Insurance Company
contested the proceedings by filing its written statement.
4. During trial, the claimant examined himself as
PW1 and he examined a medical practitioner by name
B.F.Patil as PW2. Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. Insurance
Company examined one of its officials as RW1 and Exs.R1 to
R3 were marked.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the records, the learned Tribunal allowed the
claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of
Rs.50,820/- with liability to pay the compensation fastened
on the owner of the vehicle. Learned Tribunal dismissed the
claim petition as against the Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
claimant advanced two fold contentions. Firstly, he
contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded a lower
MFA No. 20903 of 2011
compensation even though claimant had suffered serious
fracture of patella. His second contention is that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error in absolving the Insurance
Company from the liability to pay the compensation even
though the driver of the offending vehicle was having invalid
driving licence (Ex.P3) by ignoring the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Swarana Singh and others1. He, therefore,
submitted that the appeal is liable to be allowed.
7. Learned counsel Smt. Ratnamala G.H., appearing
for the Insurance Company, per contra, contended that the
learned Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation and
therefore, it is not liable to be enhanced. She further
contended that Ex.R3 is valid for the purpose of driving a
gear motorcycle and since the insured vehicle is a LMV, the
driver of the offending vehicle was not authorized to drive
the same and therefore, there was violation of the policy
conditions and as such, Insurance Company is not liable to
(2004) 3 SCC 297)
MFA No. 20903 of 2011
indemnify the compensation. She therefore, submitted that
the appeal is devoid of merits and it should be dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and I have carefully
perused the records.
9. In regard enhancement of compensation awarded
sought by the appellant is concerned, the medical records
produced namely Ex.P4 and P10 show that even though the
alleged incident had occurred on 12.03.2005, the medical
records produced show w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Even PW2-
Dr.B.F.Patil examined before the Court also does not speak
about his having treated the claimant on 12.03.2005. In that
view of the matter, I am of the view that no case is made
out for enhancing the compensation already awarded, for
lack of acceptable evidence. Ex.R3 is the licence held by the
driver of the offending trax bearing registration No.KA-
24/2680. It stands in the name of said driver-Nagappa
Fakeerappa Tallur. The said driving licence authorized him to
drive a motorcycle with gear and it was valid for the period
MFA No. 20903 of 2011
from 12.08.2003 up to 30.06.2020. In that view of the
matter, it is to be held that the driver of the offending
vehicle held invalid licence and it was not a case of the said
driver not having any licence at all. It is also held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra) that in
such cases, the proper direction to be issued in the award is
to direct the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle to
deposit compensation awarded, in the first instance, and
permit it to recover the same from the insured subsequently
in the same proceedings. Since the learned Tribunal has
dismissed the claim petition as against the Insurance
Company, to the said extent, the judgment and award is
required to be modified. Accordingly, the judgment and
award of the Tribunal is modified to the said extent directing
the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation
awarded, before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight
weeks in the first instance and thereafter proceed against
the owner of the offending vehicle to recover the same in the
same proceedings.
MFA No. 20903 of 2011
10. Since it is not made clear from the award of the
learned Tribunal as to the rate of interest awarded, it is
made clear that the award amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date
of payment. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed in
part.
11. Registry to transmit the records to the
jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
