Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S Rajashekhara @ ... vs Gangadhar S/O Rajashekharappa ... on 21 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21 S T DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
MFA No.22765/2013 (MV)
C/w. MFA No.23586/2013 (MV)
In MFA No.22765/2013:
Between:
Shri Basavaraj S.Rajashekhara @ Rajashekharagouda
Kariningalavar @ Patil, Age 21 years,
Occ: Student, Agriculture & Motor Winding Work,
R/o.: Timmenahalli Village, Tq.: Ranebennur-581115,
Dist.: Haveri.
... Appellant
(By Shri M.M. Khannur, Advocate)
Digitally
signed by J
MAMATHA And:
J Location:
MAMATHA Dharwad
Date:
2022.03.23
11:28:46
+0530 1. Shri Gangadhar S/o. Rajashekharappa Killer @ Killi,
Age 34 years, Occ: Driver cum Owner,
R/o.: Rattihalli Road, Tumminkatti,
Tq.: Ranebennur-581 115, Dist.: Haveri.
2. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Sujatha Complex, P.B. Road,
Hubballi, Dist.: Dharwad.
... Respondents
(By Shri R.R. Mane, Advocate for R2, appeared through VC;
Notice to R1 dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, 1988 against
the judgment and Award dated 19.06.2013, passed in MVC
No.524/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge & Member,
Addl. MACT, Ranebennur, partly allowing the claim petition for
compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
-1-
MFA No.22765/2013
C/w. MFA No.23586/2013
In MFA No.23586/2013:
Between:
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
By its Divisional Manager,
Sujatha Complex, P.B. Road, Hubballi,
Herein rep. by National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, 2nd Floor Arihant Plaza,
Kusugal Road, Keshwapur, Hubballi-580 023,
Rep. by its Deputy Manager.
... Appellant
(By Shri R.R. Mane, Advocate, appeared through VC)
And:
1. Basavaraj S.Rajashekhara @ Rajashekharagouda
Kariningalavar @ Patil, Age 21 years,
Occ: Student, R/o.: Timmenahalli Village,
Tq.: Ranebennur-581115.
2. Shri Gangadhar S/o. Rajashekharappa Killer @ Killi,
Age 34 years, Occ: Driver cum Owner,
R/o.: Rattihalli Road, Tumminkatti,
Tq.: Ranebennur.
Respondents
(By Shri M.M. Khannur, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 - served & unrepresented)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, 1988, against
the Judgment and Award dated 19.06.2013, passed in MVC
No.524/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Member,
Addl. MACT, Ranebennur, awarding the compensation of
Rs.1,21,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realisatiion.
These appeals coming on for admission, this day, the Court
delivered the following:
-2-
MFA No.22765/2013
C/w. MFA No.23586/2013
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal in MFA No.23586/2013 is by the
Appellant-Insurance Company challeng ing the award
made in favour of the claimant on the ground that the
driver of the vehicle did not possess the requisite
endorsement in his Driv ing Licence to drive the goods
vehicle and also on the ground that there was a d elay
in lodging the complaint and therefore, it was a
fraudulent claim.
2. The appeal in MFA No.22765/2013 is by the
claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. As far as the first contention of the
appellant-Insurance regarding endorsement of the
driving licence is concerned, in view of the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., reported in 2017 ACJ 2011, this argument
cannot be sustainab le and the appellant-Insurance
MFA No.22765/2013
C/w. MFA No.23586/2013
Company will have to accept the liab ility even if the
driver did not possess the requisite endorsement.
4. As far as the second cwontention regarding
the delay in lod ging the complaint is concerned , it is
seen that the claimant has suffered injury to his left
lumbar region and was admitted to the hosp ital as an
inpatient from 24.11.2011 to 05.12.2011 i.e., for a
period of more than 12 days. In my view, having
regard to the fact that the claimant was admitted as
an inpatient the delay of 9 days in lodging the
complaint cannot tantamount to an inference that the
claim itself was fraudulent. The second contention is
therefore rejected.
5. As far as the claim of the appellant-claimant
regarding enhancement of compensation is concerned,
the Tribunal has awarded the following sums:
1. Towards injury, pain & agony Rs.15,000/-
2. Towards medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
3. Towards food and nutritious, Rs.10,000/-
Traveling expenses &
attendant charges etc.,
MFA No.22765/2013
C/w. MFA No.23586/2013
4. Towards loss of income due to Rs.86,400/-
Permanent disability
TOTAL Rs.1,21,400/-
6. In assessing the loss of income, the Tribunal
has taken the monthly income of the claimant at
Rs.5,000/- since there was no d ocumentary evidence.
In such cases, it would be more appropriate to adopt
the notional income determined by the Karnataka
State legal Services Authority for the relevant y ear,
which would be Rs.6,000/- per month.
7. Further, the Tribunal has assessed the whole
body disability at 8% hav ing regard to the ev idence of
the Doctor. In my view, since there is no credible
evidence that the claimant has suffered any long term
disab ility, the assessment of the disability at 8% by
the Tribunal would be appropriate.
8. Further, the Tribunal had adopted the
appropriate multiplier of 18 as the claimant was aged
about 21 years at the time of accident. Thus, the
claimant would be entitled to an award on account of
MFA No.22765/2013
C/w. MFA No.23586/2013
loss of income due to permanent disab ility at
Rs.1,03,680/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 18 x 8%).
9. Since, the compensation of Rs.15,000/-
awarded towards injury, pain and agony is on the
lower side, the same requires to be enhanced to
Rs.40,000/- having regard to the fact the claimant had
suffered injury to his spine and was admitted as an
inpatient for more than 12 days.
10. Having regard to the claimant admitted to
the hospital for 12 days as an inpatient, the
compensation of Rs.10,000/- each awarded towards
medical expenses and food and nutritious, traveling
and attendant charges etc., are also req uires to be
enhanced to Rs.25,000/- on the said heads
respectively.
11. The claimant was admitted as an inpatient
for 12 days, therefore, it would be appropriate to
consider the loss of income during laid up period for
two months, since the injury suffered is to the Spine
MFA No.22765/2013
C/w. MFA No.23586/2013
and the medical evidence ind icates that the claimant
was advised strict bed rest. Thus, on the score of loss
of income during laid up period, a sum of Rs.12,000/-
(Rs.6,000/- x 2 months) would have to be award ed to
the claimant.
12. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to the
following compensations:
1. Towards injury, pain & agony Rs.40,000/-
2. Towards medical expenses Rs.25,000/-
3. Towards food and nutritious, Rs.25,000/-
Traveling expenses &
attendant charges etc.,
4. Towards loss of income due to Rs.1,03,680/-
Permanent disability
5. Loss of income during laid up Rs.12,000/-
period
TOTAL Rs.2,05,680/-
13. Accordingly, the appeal in MFA
No.22765/2013 filed by the claimant is allowed in part
and the appeal in MFA No.23586/2013 filed by the
Issuance Company is dismissed.
14. The claimant would be entitled to the total
compensation of Rs.2,05,680/- as against
MFA No.22765/2013
C/w. MFA No.23586/2013
Rs.1,21,400/- awarded by the Tribunal along with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of
petition till its realization.
15. The appellant-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the entire compensation amount
exclud ing the amount in deposit, if any, before the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
16. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement forthwith
to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
