Sri M. Thyagaraju vs Sri Muniraju
2022 Latest Caselaw 12779 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12779 Kant
Judgement Date : 3 November, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Sri M. Thyagaraju vs Sri Muniraju on 3 November, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

                                1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                 M.F.A.NO.6005/2014 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

SRI M. THYAGARAJU,
S/O K. MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1069, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
35TH 'D' CROSS, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE 41.
                                               ...APPELLANT

               (BY SRI SRINIVAS V, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI MUNIRAJU,
       S/O PUTTAMUNISWAMY,
       VARAMAHU, AGRA POST,
       BANGALORE 01.
       (OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO.CNK 7121).

2.     TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
       2ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESHWAR ARCADE,
       69, MILLERS ROAD,
       BANGALORE 52.
       (POLICY NO.015081127901).
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

        (BY SRI RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
                VIDE ORDER DATED 17.04.2017,
        SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
                                 2



     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.2.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.5652/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 18TH
ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER,
MACT-4, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION
FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.

    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 11.02.2014, passed in M.V.C.No.5652/2011, on the

file of the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes,

Member, MACT-4, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short)

questioning the liability as well as quantum of compensation.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before

the Tribunal is that he met with an accident and sustained

fracture of humerus and he was an inpatient in the hospital and

was subjected to surgery and implants were removed. In

support of his claim, he examined himself as P.W.1 and

examined the doctor as P.W.2. The Tribunal after considering

both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, awarded

compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 6%

per annum payable by respondent No.1 owner.

4. Having considered the fracture of forearm, the

Tribunal without considering the disability awarded global

compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under the head future loss of

income, an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earning

during the period of treatment and not awarded any amount

under the head other incidental expenses.

5. Having considered the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, I do not find any ground to enhance the compensation

and the compensation awarded is just and reasonable.

6. It is also the contention of the claimant that the

Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the

owner instead of Insurance Company. In support of his

contention, he relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this

Court passed in M.F.A.No.24621/2012 c/w

M.F.A.No.20314/2013, wherein in similar set of facts and

circumstances i.e., involvement of trailer in causing the accident,

this Court fastened the liability on the Insurance Company.

Relying upon the said Division Bench judgment, a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in M.F.A.No.100239/2016 c/w

M.F.A.No.100240/2016 in similar set of facts, fastened the

liability on the Insurance Company.

7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

contend that when the trailer is not insured and only tractor is

insured, this Court can only consider 50% of the compensation

to be payable by the Insurance Company and not the entire

compensation. The said submission cannot be accepted in view

of the judgments referred supra, wherein 100% liability is

shifted on the Insurance Company. Hence, I do not find any

force in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent

No.2. Having taken note of the principles laid down in the

judgments referred supra, it is a fit case to fasten the liability on

the Insurance Company instead of the owner.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the

Tribunal dated 11.02.2014, passed in

M.V.C.No.5652/2011, is modified exonerating

the liability of the owner and the liability is

fastened on the Insurance Company.

(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the

compensation amount within six weeks from

today with interest at 6% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of deposit.