Karnataka High Court
The Manager Shriram General ... vs Ramesh And Anr on 5 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.30507/2013 (MV)
C/w
MFA No.30508/2013, MFA No.32105/2013,
MFA No.32106/2013
In MFA No.30507/2013
Between:
The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
E-8, EPIP, Industrial Area,
Sitapur, Jaipur-302 022.
(Rajashthan), through its Authorized
Representative Mr. Ullas Karanth A.S.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Bhadrashetty Sangeeta, Advocate)
And:
1. Smt. Parvati W/o Ramesh Mathapathi,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Business,
(Running Sweet House),
R/o Chitaguppa, Now at Brahampur,
Behind S.B.Temple, Gulbarga-585 101.
2
2. Venkata Ramanaiah Naidu P.Subbarayadu,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-04/X-2818,
R/o 6-250, Kamma Bazar, Duvvur,
Kadapa District-516 175 (A.P.).
... Respondents
(By Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate for R1;
Notice to R2 is held sufficient v/o dated
20.10.2014)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the MV Act praying to call for the records in MVC
No.1065/2009 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Gulbarga. Allow this
appeal by setting aside the impugned Common Judgment
and Award dated 08.06.2012, in MVC No.1065/2009,
passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, at Gulbarga.
In MFA No.30508/2013
Between:
The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
E-8, EPIP, Industrial Area,
Sitapur, Jaipur-302 022.
(Rajashthan), through its Authorized
Representative Mr. Ullas Karanth A.S.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Bhadrashetty Sangeeta, Advocate)
3
And:
1. Ramesh S/o Revansiddayya Mathapathi,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Business,
(Running Sweet House),
R/o Chitaguppa, Now at Brahampur,
Behind S.B.Temple, Gulbarga-585 101.
2. Venkata Ramanaiah Naidu P.Subbarayadu,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-04/X-2818,
R/o 6-250, Kamma Bazar, Duvvur,
Kadapa District-516 175 (A.P.).
... Respondents
(By Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate for R1;
Notice to R2 is held sufficient v/o dated
08.02.2016)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the MV Act praying to call for the records in MVC
No.1066/2009 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Gulbarga. Allow this
appeal by setting aside the impugned Common Judgment
and Award dated 08.06.2012, in MVC No.1066/2009,
passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, at Gulbarga.
In MFA No.32105/2013
Between:
Smt. Parvati W/o Ramesh Mathapathi,
Aged: 44 years, Occ: Business,
(Running Sweet House)
R/o Chitaguppa, Now at Brahmpur,
4
Behind S.B.Temple, Gulbarga-585 103.
... Appellant
(By Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate)
And:
1. Venkata Ramanaiah Naidu P.Subbarayadu,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-04/X-2818,
R/o 6/250, Kamma Bazar, Duvvur,
Kadapa District-516 360 (A.P.).
2. The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
E-8, EPIP Industrial Sitapur,
Jaipur-302022, (Rajasthan)
... Respondents
(By Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with v/o
dated 27.11.2015)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the MV Act praying to allow the appeal by
modifying the judgment and award dated 08.06.2012
passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gulbarga
in MVC No.1065/2009 and consequently be pleased to
enhance the compensation from Rs.1,89,500/- to
Rs.10,75,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the
date of petition till actual realization.
In MFA No.32106/2013
Between:
Ramesh S/o Revansiddayya Mathapathi,
5
Aged: 47 years, occ: Business
(Running Sweet House)
R/o Chitaguppa, Now at Brahmpur,
Behind S.B.Temple, Gulbarga-585 103.
... Appellant
(By Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate)
And:
1. Venkata Ramanaiah Naidu P.Subbarayadu,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-04/X-2818,
R/o 6/250, Kamma Bazar, Duvvur,
Kadapa District-516360
2. The Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
E-8, EPIP Industrial Sitapur,
Jaipur-302 022, (Rajasthan)
... Respondents
(By Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with v/o
dated 27.11.2015)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the MV Act praying to allow the appeal by
modifying the judgment and award dated 08.06.2012
passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gulbarga
in MVC No.1066/2009 and consequently be pleased to
enhance the compensation.
These appeals coming on for Hearing, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
6
JUDGMENT
Since these appeals arise out of the common
judgment, they are heard together and disposed of by
this common judgment.
2. These appeals are filed under Section 173(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') challenging
the judgment and award dated 08.06.2012 passed by
the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, (for short hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC Nos.1065/2009
1066/2009.
3. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of these appeals are
as under:
On 09.05.2009 at about 10.15 a.m., petitioners in
MVC Nos.1065/2009 and 1066/2009 being wife and
husband were proceeding on M-80 motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-38/H-2443 on the left side of the
road from Sindankera to Chittaguppa, near Chittaguppa
cross on N.H.No.9, the driver of a lorry bearing
registration No.AP-04/X-2818 came from back side in a
rash and negligent manner, in a high speed endangering
the human life and dashed to the said motorcycle on
which both the petitioners were proceeding. As a result,
both the petitioners sustained multiple injuries.
Immediately, both the petitioners were shifted to
Government Hospital, Humnabad and thereafter, they
were shifted to Yashodhara Hospital, Solapur wherein
they took treatment as inpatients. It is contended that
the petitioners have spent huge amount for the medical
expenses. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle
and respondent No.2 is the insurer. Both the
respondents are liable to pay compensation for the
injuries sustained by the petitioners in the road traffic
accident. Hence, the petitioners filed claim petitions
under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on
account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident.
5. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.1
remained absent. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company
filed written statement denying the averments made in
the claim petitions and denied the age and avocation of
the petitioners. It is contended that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of the accident and there
is violation of the policy condition. Therefore,
petitioners are not entitled for compensation as prayed
in the claim petitions and prayed to dismiss the claim
petitions.
6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the issues:
i. Whether the petitioner proves that, on
09-05-2009 at about 10-15 A.m., when
the petitioner along with his/her
wife/husband were returning from
Sindankera towards Chittaguppa on
their M-80 Motorcycle bearing No.KA-
38/H-2443 and when they came near
Chittaguppa cross, at that time, a Lorry
bearing No.AP-04/X-2218 came from
backside in a high speed and also in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed
to the petitioner's vehicle and caused
the accident?
ii. Whether the petitioner further proves
that, the accident occurred due to the
negligent act of the driver of the Lorry
bearing No.AP-04/X-2818 as a result
the accident occurred and the
petitioner sustained grievous injuries as
alleged and as such the respondents
are liable to pay the compensation?
iii. Whether the respondent no.2 proves
that, the rider of the M-80 Motorcycle
contributed for the alleged accident?
iv. Whether the respondent no.2 further
proves that, the rider of the Motorcycle
did not possess valid and effective D.L.
on the date of accident?
v. Whether the respondent no.2 further
proves that, the driver of the Lorry did
not possess valid and effective D.L. on
the date of accident?
vi. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount
and from whom?
vii. What Award or Order?
7. In order to prove the case, petitioner in MVC
No.1065/2009 examined herself as PW.1 and petitioner
in MVC No.1066/2009 examined himself as PW.2 and
examined the doctors as PWs.3 and 4 and got marked
documents as Exs.P1 to P357. The respondent No.2-
Insurance Company examined its Legal Officer as RW.1
and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 and R2.
8. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence
and considering the material on record, answered issue
Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue Nos.3 to 5 in
negative and issue No.6 partly in the affirmative in both
the cases and consequently, held that the petitioners are
entitled for compensation and consequently, allowed the
claim petitions in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.1,89,500/- to the petitioner in MVC No.1065/2009
and Rs.2,66,200/- to the petitioner in MVC
No.1066/2009 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of petition till its realization from
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and directed respondent No.2-
Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation
amount.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal, appeals in MFA Nos.30507/2013
and 30508/2013 are filed by the respondent-insurance
company challenging liability and quantum of
compensation and appeals in MFA Nos.32105/2013 and
32106/2013 are filed by the petitioners seeking
enhancement of compensation.
10. Heard the learned counsel for respondent
No.2-/Insurance Company and the learned counsel for
the petitioners.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company submits that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident. She further
submits that respondent No.2 has produced
endorsement issued by the RTO of Andhra Pradesh to
establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not
possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the
date of the accident. She further submits that the
Tribunal without considering the said aspect has saddled
liability on the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
She further submits that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is on the higher side and on these grounds,
she prays to allow the appeals filed by the Insurance
Company.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that respondent No.2 itself has
produced endorsement issued by the RTO of Andhra
Pradesh which discloses that the driving licence for non-
transport and transport is valid from 23.06.2009 to
22.06.2012 and further accident has occurred on
09.05.2009. On perusal of the endorsement issued by
the RTO of Andhra Pradesh, it would disclose that the
driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of accident. He
further submitted that the Tribunal was justified in
recording finding that the driver of the offending vehicle
was having valid and effective driving licence and
justified in saddling the liability on the Insurance
Company. He further submits that the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and hence,
he submits that the petitioners are entitled for
enhancement of compensation. On these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the appeals filed by the Insurance
Company and to allow the appeals filed by the
petitioners.
13. I have perused the records and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties. The point that arises for consideration is with
regard to liability and quantum of compensation.
14. The occurrence of the accident and the
injuries sustained by the petitioners in the said accident
are not in dispute. In order to prove that the accident
has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have
produced copy of charge sheet which is marked as
Ex.P3. From perusal of Ex.P3, it is clear that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending vehicle.
15. Insofar as liability is concerned, it is the case
of respondent No.2-Insurance Company that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.
In order to substantiate its defence, respondent No.2
examined its Official as RW.1 who has deposed that as
on the date of the accident driver of the offending
vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence and
produced copy of extract of driving licence and also
endorsement issued by the RTO of Andhra Pradesh, but
the said endorsement was not marked. However, the
Tribunal has taken judicial note of the said endorsement
and recorded finding that the driver of the offending
vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving licence
as on the date of accident. This Court perused the
endorsement dated 06.01.2012. The endorsement
discloses that licence was issued on 23.11.1995 and
Prof/transport was valid upto 22.06.2012 and non-
transport valid upto 22.06.2012. Admittedly, accident
has occurred on 09.05.2009. The endorsement discloses
that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing
valid and effective driving licence as on the date of
accident. Respondent No.2 except producing the
endorsement has not examined the RTO of Andhra
Pradesh in order to prove the contents of the
endorsement. The Tribunal has framed issue No.5
placing burden on respondent No.2-Insurance Company
to prove that the driver of the offending lorry was not
possessing valid and effective licence as on the date of
accident. Respondent No.2 except producing an
endorsement has not produced any other documents in
order to substantiate the same and has not examined
the author of the document to prove the contents of the
said endorsement. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified
in recording finding that the driver of the offending
vehicle was possessing valid and effective driving licence
as on the date of accident.
16. Perusal of the impugned judgment would
indicate that the petitioners did not produce any
evidence with regard to their income before the
Tribunal. Therefore, as per the chart provided by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional
income will have to be taken into consideration. In
terms of the chart, for the accident of the year 2009, the
notional income of the petitioners will have to be taken
at Rs.5,000/- as against Rs.3,000/- and Rs.4,000/- per
month taken by the Tribunal. Considering the disability
certificates issued by PWs.3 and 4-Doctors, the Tribunal
has recorded finding that petitioner in MVC
No.1065/2009 has suffered disability to an extent of
20% to the whole body and petitioner in MVC
No.1066/2009 has suffered disability to an extent of
10%. The Tribunal has justified in assessing the
permanent disability in both the claim petitions.
17. Taking into account the age of the petitioner
in MVC No.1065/2009 who was 38 years at the time of
accident, multiplier of "15" has to be adopted.
Therefore, the petitioner in MVC No.1065/2009 would be
entitled to compensation towards loss of future income
at Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.5,000/- X 12 X 15 X 20/100).
18. Considering the nature of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner in MVC No.1065/2009, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side and the same is re-assessed in the following
manner:
Compensation awarded in
Rs.
Particulars
By the By this
Tribunal Court
Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 25,000/-
Medical expenses 50,000/- 50,000/-
Attendant, nursing, extra
nourishment charges and 5,000/- 15,000/-
conveyance
Loss of future earnings 1,08,000/- 1,80,000/-
Loss of income during the
1,500/- 15,000/-
laid-up period (5,000 x 3)
Loss of amenities 10,000/- 25,000/-
Total 1,89,500/- 3,10,000/
Enhanced by this Court 1,20,500/-
19. Taking into account the age of the petitioner
in MVC No.1066/2009 who was 45 years at the time of
accident, multiplier of "14" has to be adopted.
Therefore, the petitioner in MVC No.1066/2009 would be
entitled to compensation towards loss of future income
at Rs.84,000/- (Rs.5,000/- X 12 X 14 X 10/100).
20. Considering the nature of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner in MVC No.1066/2009, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower
side and the same is re-assessed in the following
manner:
Compensation awarded in
Rs.
Particulars
By the By this
Tribunal Court
Pain and sufferings 15,000/- 25,000/-
Medical expenses 1,50,000/- 1,50,000/-
Attendant, nursing, extra
nourishment charges and 10,000/- 20,000/-
conveyances
Loss of future earnings 67,200/- 84,000/-
Loss of income during the
4,000/- 15,000/-
laid-up period (5,000 x 3)
Loss of amenities 15,000/- 25,000/-
Conveyance charges 5,000/- 10,000/-
Total 2,66,200/- 3,29,000/
Enhanced by this Court 62,800/-
21. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeals filed by the respondent-
Insurance Company in MFA
Nos.30507/2013 and 30508/2013 are
dismissed.
ii. The appeals filed by the petitioners in
MFA Nos.32105/2013 and 32106/2013
are allowed in part.
iii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
The petitioner in MVC No.1065/2009 is
entitled to an enhanced compensation
of Rs.1,20,500/- and the petitioner in
MVC No.1066/2009 is entitled to an
enhanced compensation of Rs.62,800/-
along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization. However, the
petitioner/appellant in MFA No.32105/
2013 and petitioner/appellant in MFA
No.32106/2013 are not entitled to
interest for the delay period of 350 and
345 days respectively in filing the
above appeals as per order dated
27.11.2015.
iv. The respondent-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation
amount within a period of eight weeks
from date of the receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the
Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*
