Karnataka High Court
Legal Manager vs H K Devaraju on 14 March, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
M.F.A NO.10205 OF 2018
C/W
M.F.A NO.10055 OF 2018 (MV-I)
IN M.F.A No.10205 OF 2018
BETWEEN :
H.K. DEVARAJU
S/O SHRI. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC:OFFICE/ATTENDER
AT NYAYAMITHRA SAHAKARI
BANK NIYAMITHA
CITY CIVIL COURT BRANCH
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
R/O MYLANAKANHALLI
HOSAHALLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT ...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. H.S. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND :
1. NANJUNDESHWARASWAMY
S/O SHIVANNA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT ANNUMANHALLI
2
KOOTAGAL HOBLI
RAMANAGAR TALUK
RAMANAGAR-562 159
(RC OWNER OF BAJAJ PULSAR ENGINE
NO.DHZWGA05604-CHASSIS
NO.MD2A11CZ6GWA 3878)
2. REGIONAL MANAGER
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
NO.6,ANNAPOORNA COMPLEX
80 FEET ROAD, 3RD BLOCK
KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE-560 034
(INSURER OF BAJAJ PULSAR ENGINE
NO.DHZWGA05604-CHASSIS
NO.MD2A11CZ6GWA 3878
POLICY NO.423101/31/2017/1696
VALID FROM 07/05/2016 TO
MIDNIGHT 06/05/2017) ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.B. NEELA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
....
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.1941/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ACMM AND XXIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MACT, BENGALURU
(SCCH-25), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A No.10055 OF 2018
BETWEEN :
LEGAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.,
NO.6, ANNAPOORNA COMPLEX
80 FT. ROAD, 3RD BLOCK
KORAMANGALA-560 034. ...APPELLANT
3
(BY SHRI. LAKSHMI NARASAPPA FOR
SHRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
[THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE]
AND :
1. H.K. DEVARAJU
S/O SHRI. KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/O MYLANAKANAHALLI
HOSAHALLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
2. NANJUNDESHWARASWAMY
S/O SHIVANNA
MAJOR
R/AT ANUMANAHALLI
KOOTAGAL HOBLI
RAMANAGAR TALUK
RAMANAGAR-562 159 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. H.S. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R1
- [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE];
SMT. G.K. SREEVIDYA FOR
SHRI. T.N. VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
....
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.09.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1941/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M AND XXIII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-25),
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,71,600/- WITH INTEREST
AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
4
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed against the
judgment and award dated September 7, 2018 in
MVC No.1941/2017 passed by the XXI ACMM & XXIII
Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru
(SCCH-25).
2. MFA No.10205/2018 is by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation and MFA No.
10055/2018 is by the Insurer challenging the liability
fastened upon it.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties shall
be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
4. Heard Shri. Lakshmi Narasappa, learned
Advocate for the Insurer, Shri. H.S. Santhosh, learned
Advocate for the claimant; and Smt. H.B. Neela and
Smt. G.K. Sreevidya, learned Advocates for the owner
of the offending vehicle.
5. Brief facts of the case are, on June 25,
2016, claimant was riding his Honda two-wheeler on
Kyasapura-Ramanagara Road. An unregistered two-
wheeler of Bajaj Pulsar make coming from opposite
side dashed against the claimant's two-wheeler
causing grievous injuries to him. He was treated as
an inpatient in Rajarajeshwari Medical College &
Hospital, Bengaluru from June 25, 2016 to August 8,
2016. He has filed the instant claim petition seeking
compensation.
6. Claimant and two other witnesses were
examined as PWs-1 to 3; and Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 were
marked. On behalf of the Insurer, its Administrative
Officer was examined as RW-1; and Exhibits R1 to R6
were marked.
7. By the impugned judgment and award, the
Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,71,600/- as compensation
payable with interest at 8% p.a.
8. On behalf of the claimant, it was argued by
Shri. Santhosh that keeping in view the injuries
sustained by the claimant, the compensation awarded
is not adequate. The Tribunal has not awarded any
compensation towards loss of future income.
Accordingly, he prayed for suitable enhancement by
allowing his appeal and to dismiss Insurer's appeal.
9. Shri. Lakshmi Narasappa, for the Insurer,
while opposing claimant's appeal, argued in support of
Insurer's appeal. Firstly, he contended that the
accident has occurred entirely due to the negligence
on the part of the claimant. Secondly, that Tribunal
has erred in saddling the liability on the Insurer,
though the vehicle was not registered as on the date
of accident.
10. We have carefully considered rival
contentions and perused the records.
11. Undisputed facts of the case are, claimant
has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident
involving his two-wheeler and the offending vehicle in
question.
12. Charge-sheet has been filed against the
owner of the offending vehicle.
13. Tribunal has recorded that as per Wound
Certificate Ex.P8, claimant has suffered two simple
injuries and one grievous injury. It has awarded actual
medical expenses and loss of income during laid-up
period. In addition, compensation of Rs.40,000/-
towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss
of future amenities, Rs.20,000/- towards attendant,
conveyance, food and nourishment charges have been
awarded. In addition, Tribunal has awarded
Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses.
Therefore, in our view, the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is just and appropriate and does not call
for any interference.
14. So far as the appeal filed by the Insurer is
concerned, we may record that admittedly the
offending vehicle was insured. The only ground urged
on behalf of the Insurer to avoid liability is that the
vehicle was not registered. Non-registration of vehicle
may entail penal consequences, but does not affect
the Contract between the owner of the vehicle and the
Insurer.
15. In view of the above, both these appeals
must fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SPS
