Karnataka High Court
Chidananda Kashappanavar vs Sree Kumar. S on 14 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.6000/2017 (MV-I)
C/W.
M.F.A.NO.6001/2017 (MV-I)
IN M.F.A.NO.6000/2017:
BETWEEN:
CHIDANANDA KASHAPPANAVAR
S/O. VEERAPPA KASHAPPANAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT: C/O. S.S. KASHAPPANAVAR,
AT POST, HAVARAGI,
HUNGUND, BAGALKOTE-587 118.
NOW RESIDING AT:
NO.2470, II FLOOR,
3RD PHASE, II MAIN,
NEAR SOMESHWARA TEMPLE,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU-560 064. ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. NALINA KUMARI K.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SREE KUMAR S.,
S/O. S. DHARAN,
MAJOR, NO.52, AYYAPPA LAYOUT,
MUNEKOLALU, MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 037.
2
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA,
BENGALURU-560 068. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A. SEGARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 [THROUGH VC];
SRI D.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.3497/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.NO.6001/2017:
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S. NAIK
S/O SHANKAR N. NAIK
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT PERMANENT ADDRESS:
EWSS, 187, DANDELI SHAHAR,
MAJARE AMBEWADI,
(MCTEB HOUSES-I, 1-25
4 OLD KPC HUDCO COLONY HOUSE,
DANDELI, HALIYALA, NORTH CANARA.
NOW RESIDING AT
C/O. S. NIRMALA
ROOM NO.6, HOUSE NO.1482,
SANITARY CARE, EWS, 3RD STAGE,
3-SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU-560064. ... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. NALINA KUMARI K.G., ADVOCATE)
3
AND:
1. SREE KUMAR. S.,
S/O. S. DHARAN,
MAJOR, NO.52, AYYAPPA LAYOUT,
MUNEKOLALU, MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 037.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.89, 2ND FLOOR, SVR COMPLEX,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIWALA,
BENGALURU-560 068. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - IS SERVED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2015
PASSED IN MVC NO.3497/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and
award dated 16.06.2015 passed in M.V.C.Nos.3497/2013 and
3498/2013 on the file of XXII Additional Small Causes Judge and
Member, MACT, Bengaluru ('the Tribunal' for short) questioning
the quantum of compensation as well as the liability.
2. The parties are referred to as per their original
rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the
convenience of the Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that an accident has occurred on 27.05.2013 and
both the P.Ws.1 and 2 have sustained injuries. The appellant in
M.F.A.No.6000/2017 was aged about 28 years and has suffered
4 cm. sutured wound over the right frontal parietal area and also
contusion over right shoulder with pain and he was earning
Rs.34,000/- per month and no document is placed before the
Court for having sustained the fractures. The Tribunal, taking
note of the nature of injuries, awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-
towards pain and suffering and also Rs.1,000/- towards food,
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and failed to
take note of the medical bills at Exs.P9 to Ex.P17 amounting to
Rs.1958/- and awarded global compensation of Rs.6,000/-.
Having taken note of the fact that the claimant has suffered
sutured wound and contusion over right shoulder and also
considering the medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,958/-, it is
appropriate to award an amount of Rs.12,000/- as against
Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
5. In the appeal in M.F.A.No.6001/2017, the claimant
has sustained contusion over the left elbow and contusion over
the right wrist with minimal displaced fracture distal end of right
radius and to show that he has taken treatment as an inpatient ,
no document is placed before the Court.
6. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-
towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards food,
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and in all,
awarded Rs.11,000/-. However, the Tribunal failed to take note
of the gravity of the injuries sustained by the claimant and no
doubt, the Doctor has not been examined and when the claimant
has taken treatment as an outpatient and produced medical bills
to the tune of Rs.3,844/-, it is appropriate to award an amount
of Rs.3,844/- towards medical expenses. Hence, global
compensation of Rs.60,000/- is awarded as against Rs.11,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal which includes loss of income during
treatment period for uniting fractures and medical expenses.
7. The other contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants is that the vehicle involved in the
accident is a Tata Ace which is a light motor vehicle and the
driver was having license to drive the same. In view of the
judgment of the Apex Court in MUKUND DEWANGAN v.
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., reported in (2017) 14 SCC
663, the liability fastened on the insured is erroneous. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
Company would contend that the matter has been referred to a
larger Bench and hence, the liability cannot be fastened on the
Insurance Company. Having considered the submission, there is
no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle involved in the
accident is a light motor vehicle and the driver was having the
license to drive the same In view of the judgment of the Apex
Court in MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE
CO.LTD., reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663, the liability has to be
fastened on the Insurance Company and the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance
Company that the matter is referred to a larger Bench and the
same is not decided cannot be a ground to fasten the liability on
the insured as held by the Tribunal. Hence, the liability is
fastened on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 16.06.2015 passed in
M.V.C.No.3497/2013 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.12,000/- as against
Rs.6,000/- with interest at 6% per annum and
the impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal dated 16.06.2015 passed in
M.V.C.No.3498/2013 is modified granting
compensation of Rs.60,000/- as against
Rs.11,000/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The liability is fastened on the Insurance
Company exonerating the liability on the
insured.
(v) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
