Karnataka High Court
Anantha vs Narashimegowda on 21 November, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.7618/2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
ANANTHA
S/O.MAHADEVA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST &
SUGARCANE HARVESTER
R/O. PATTANAGERE VILLAGE
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JAGADISH G. KUMBAR FOR
SRI V.N.MADHAVA REDDY &
SRI B.M.KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. NARASHIMEGOWDA
S/O. SINGRIGOWDA
ASHOKANAGARA
KANAGANAHALLI POST
CHINAKURALI HOBLI
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434.
2. THE MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING
CENTENARY BUILDING
NO.28, M.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001.
2
3. THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MYTHRI ARCHARD, 1ST MAIN
SARASWATHIPURAM
MYSURU. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.L.SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI H.N.KESHAVA PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.04.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.106/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, PANDAVAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the
consent of both the learned counsel, it is taken up for final
disposal.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondents.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award
dated 04.04.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.106/2010 on the file of
the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Pandavapura ('the Tribunal'
for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.
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. The factual matrix of the case of the claimant before
the Tribunal is that, he met with an accident and due to the
accident, he has suffered fracture of femur and he was inpatient
for a period of 26 days and the Doctor assessed the disability at
34% to particular limb and the Tribunal has taken the disability
at 11%.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
claimant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under
all the heads is very meager and the income was taken only at
Rs.4,500/- per month. Hence, it requires interference of this
Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
would submit that the Tribunal has taken note of the nature of
injuries as well as the disability sustained by the claimant and
has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, it
requires interference of this Court.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record and taking note of the
fact that he had suffered femur fracture, Tribunal awarded
Rs.40,000/- on the head of pain and suffering and the same
does not require any interference.
7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.11,270/- towards medical
expenses and the same is based on the documentary evidence
and the same does not require any interference.
8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards food,
diet, nourishment and other incidental expenses. The claimant
was inpatient for a period of 26 days and it is the accident of the
year 2009. Hence, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as against
Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- on the head of
future medical expenses and the evidence of the Doctor is every
clear that implant has to be removed. Hence, a sum of
Rs.20,000/- is awarded as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
10. The Tribunal awarded Rs.9,000/- towards loss of
income during treatment period taking the income at Rs.4,500/-
per month. Since, the claimant has suffered fracture of femur, it
requires minimum 4 months for uniting fracture and rest.
Hence, taking the income at Rs.5,000/- per month for a period
of 4 months, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of
income during laid up period.
11. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- on the head of
disappointment and discomfort and loss of amenities and the
claimant is aged about 23 years and he has to lead rest of his
life with the disability of 11%. Hence, a sum of Rs.35,000/- is
awarded under this head as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal.
12. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,06,920/- towards loss of
future income. Considering the income of the claimant at
Rs.5,000/- per month, disability at 11% and the relevant
multiplier of '18', a sum of Rs.1,18,800/- is awarded as against
Rs.1,06,920/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, in all, the
claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,70,070/- as against
Rs.2,17,190/- awarded by the Tribunal.
13. It is the contention of the claimant that the Tribunal
has fastened the liability on the respondent No.1-owner only on
the ground that driver did not possess valid driving license to
drive the non-transport vehicle. Admittedly, the vehicle involved
in the accident is an auto rickshaw which is a light motor vehicle.
It is also the contention that there was deviation and the auto
rickshaw was plied outside the permit area.
14. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in
MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 and also the judgments of this
Court in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA
INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. JAYAMMA reported in ILR 2018
KAR 1849 and S.N. KENCHANNA VS. ANITHA & OTHERS
reported in ILR 2018 KAR 3921, deviation of permit is not a
fundamental infraction. Hence, liability is shifted on the
Insurance Company.
15. Having perused the material on record, it is seen
that the respondent No.3-Insurance Company has admitted the
policy in terms of Ex.R4 and hence, the respondent No.3 is liable
to pay the compensation. The respondent No.2-Insurance
Company in the written statement specifically contended that the
vehicle is not insured with them and specific defence is taken
that the vehicle is insured with respondent No.3-Insurance
Company under Proposal Ref. No.1027525016. When such being
the case, the respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation.
16. 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 04.04.2014 passed in
M.V.C.No.106/2010, is modified granting
compensation of Rs.2,70,070/- as against
Rs.2,17,190/- with interest at 6% per annum
from the date of petition till deposit.
(iii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Tribunal is modified fastening the liability on
the respondent No.3-Insurance Company
exonerating the liability on the respondent
No.1-owner of the vehicle and the respondent
No.3-Insurance Company is directed to pay the
compensation amount with interest within six
weeks from today.
(iv) The Registry is directed to transmit the records
to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST
