H M Vijaya vs Mahadeva
2022 Latest Caselaw 13154 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

                 M.F.A.NO.1410/2015 (MV-I)

BETWEEN:

H.M.VIJAYA
S/O ARADHYANATH S.C.,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT 14TH MAIN ROAD
No.2717, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR
2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-570 040                            ... APPELLANT

         (BY SRI SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MAHADEVA
       S/O LATE CHIKKA MADEGOWDA
       AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
       OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST AND
       TIMBER BUSINESS
       R/O. ADAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
       ATHAGUR HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK
       MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401


2.     THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
       THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       D.O. II, NEW MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX,
       SARASWATHIPURAM
       MYSURU CITY-570 005
                               2



3.   THE MANAGER
     MAX MOTORS, 2/6
     DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD
     III STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR
     BENGALURU-560 010

4.   MAHESH B.,
     S/O BORALINGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     R/O MALLIGERE
     KOPPA HOBLI
     MADDUR TALUK-571 428

5.   KANCHI VARADARAJ
     S/O NARASIMHAIAH
     R/O NO.268, 8TH CROSS
     1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD PHASE
     MANJUNATHANAGAR
     BENGALURU-560 010.               ... RESPONDENTS

         (BY SRI T.G.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
         SRI C.S.LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR
           SRI A.M.VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
     R3 & R5 ARE SERVED, VIDE ORDER DATED 17.12.2021
              APPEAL AGAINST R4 IS DISMISSED)


     THIS M.F.A., IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 29.12.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.133/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDE, MACT, MADDUR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.76,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL REALIZATION.


    THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                   3



                           JUDGMENT

Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the

consent of both the learned counsel it is taken up for final

disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/owner and the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent. R3 and

R5 are served. The appeal against R4 was dismissed.

3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

award dated 29.12.2009 passed in M.V.C.No.133/2009 on the

file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT., Maddur ('the Tribunal' for

short).

4. The parties are referred to as per their original

rankings before the Tribunal to avoid confusion and for the

convenience of the Court.

5. A short question involved in this matter is that the

Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence

placed on record fastened the liability on the Insured on the

ground that the rider of the motorcycle was not having a driving

license. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the owner.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant/owner is that the Tribunal committed

an error even though the Policy was valid on the date of the

accident; the Tribunal fastened the liability erroneously on the

owner.

7. Having perused the material available on record, it is

emerged during the course of evidence that there was an

exchange of vehicle between the appellant and respondent No.3.

Respondent No.3 gave deposition before the Tribunal that there

was an exchange; the original owner got exchanged the vehicle

and immediately after exchanging the same, the vehicle was

sold in favour of one Guruswamy and he did not contest the

matter. Having considered the material available on record, the

Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the vehicle stands in the

name of the appellant herein and no material is placed before

the Court that the rider of the motorcycle was having a driving

license or not. Hence, fastened the liability on the owner.

8. This is an appeal filed by the owner herself and the

owner did not place any material before the Court that the rider

of the motorcycle was having the driving license to drive the

motorcycle. When such being the case, the question of pay and

recovery also does not arise.

9. With regard to the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the grounds urged before this Court is that the

Tribunal awarded excessive and exorbitant compensation. The

Tribunal having considered the nature of injuries i.e., fracture of

middle 1/3rd right tibia, the same was grievous in nature,

awarded global compensation of Rs.76,000/- viz., on the head of

pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-; on the head of loss of amenities

Rs.25,000/- and another Rs.11,000/- towards medical expenses,

conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant and other

incidental charges and even not considered the compensation on

the head of future loss of income. When such being the case, I

do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant/owner that the compensation

awarded is excessive and exorbitant.

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

following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*