Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra S vs Munesh on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MFA.NO.8825/2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA .S
S/O SANJEEV RAO
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NO.113, ATTUR LAYOUT
MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH .M., ADVOCATE(VC))
AND:
1. MUNESH
NO.455, SHARADAMBA NAGAR
JALAHALLI 1ST CROSS
1ST MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 013
2. THE MANAGER
THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.112, 1ST FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD
NEAR CANARA BANK
GEDDALAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 094
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 -NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED
01.07.2021, SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE
FOR R2)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED:27.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1894/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDGE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MAYO HALL
UNIT,MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as
'MV Act' for brevity) by the appellant-claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated
27.06.2015, passed in MVC No.1894/2011, on the file
of MACT and V Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore City, (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) seeking enhancement.
Brief facts:
2. On 18.10.2009 at about 8.45 p.m., the
appellant after visiting his friend's house, at 5th 'C'
Cross, Sharadamba Nagar, along with his friends was
standing on the footpath, at that time a Honda Dio
vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04/EV-0371 dashed
against the appellant, due to rash and negligent riding
by its rider. As a result of which the appellant
sustained grievous injuries.
3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the
appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained in the
accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials
on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a
compensation of Rs.70,000/-, along with interest at
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
its realization. The Tribunal held that respondent No.1
is solely liable to pay the compensation.
4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 - insurance company and perused the materials
on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded
under various heads is on lesser side. Therefore,
seeks for enhancement of the compensation.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent - insurance
company submits that the Tribunal is justified in
passing the impugned judgment and award and there
is no ground for enhancement and that the
compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is
sufficient and adequate.
7. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
is as follows:
Pain and Suffering : Rs. 20,000/-
Nourishment Food, attendant : Rs. 5,000/-
charges
Conveyance : Rs. 1,000/-
Medical Expenses : Rs. 39,000/-
Loss of amenities life : Rs. 5,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 70,000/-
8. The Tribunal had fixed the liability on the
respondent No.1-owner by absolving responsibility on
the 2nd respondent-insurance company on the ground
that at the time of the accident, the driver was not
holding valid and effective driving license. Therefore,
even though it is admitted fact that the insurance
policy was in force on the date of the accident, but on
the ground that there was no valid and effective
driving license on the part of the driver of the vehicle
the liability was fixed on the respondent No.1-owner.
9. The Tribunal has given the finding on this
aspect that the rider of the offending vehicle did not
possess valid and effective driving license. Hence, it is
ordered that the respondent No.2-insurance company
is not liable to indemnify and fastened liability on the
respondent No.1-owner. Therefore the finding of the
fact is that as on the date of the accident the driver
was not holding valid and effective driving license. In
this regard respondent No.2 has taken defence as
available under Section 149(2) of the Act. Therefore,
it is incumbent on the respondent-insurance company
to satisfy the claim amount at first instance and then
recover from the owner of the vehicle who is
respondent No.1 as per Section 149(2) of the Act.
10. In this regard, I place reliance on the full
bench decision of this Court in the case of New India
Assurance Company Limited Bijapur by its
Divisional Manager Vs. Yallavva and Another
reported in 2020 ACJ 2560 and in the case of Pappu
and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208.
11. Therefore, in view of the principles laid
down as stated supra even though the 2nd respondent-
insurance company absolutely is not liable to pay
compensation but respondent No.2 has to satisfy the
compensation amount and then recover the same
from respondent No.1-owner by following due
procedure of law as per the principles laid down in the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Chella
Bharathamma & Others reported in AIR 2004 SCC
4882. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed in
part.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The 2nd respondent herein is directed to
satisfy the compensation amount to the
appellant and then recover from the
respondent No.1-owner as per the
principles laid down in the case of Chella
Bharathamma & others stated supra.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2015 for condonation of
delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
