Karnataka High Court
Sri. A. R. Siddaraju vs The Manager on 6 December, 2023
Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
MFA No. 456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2021(MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2021(MV)
IN MFA 456/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI SUNIL KUMAR C
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
GOVT EMPLOYEE
R/AT SIDDARTHA NAGARA
MALAVALLI TOWN
MANDYA DISTRICT
NOW R/AT C/O HOUSE OF DIWAKARA M
S/O MALLESHA ARAKERE VILLAGE & HOBLI
Digitally signed
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
by
DHANALAKSHMI
MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.
MURTHY
Location: High
...APPELLANT
Court of
Karnataka (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
HDFC ERGO INSURANCE CO LTD
IN FRONT OF SUB URBAN BUS STAND
MAHARAJA COMPLEX
1ST FLOOR MYSURU-570001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
MFA No. 456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021
2. SRI ABDUL NADEEM
S/O ABDUL KUDDUS
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RA/T NO.92, N G O S COLONY
RAJENDRA NAGARA
MYSURU CITY-570007
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1395/2017 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
MACT, SRIRANGAPATANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA 580/2021
BETWEEN:
SRI A R SIDDARAJU
S/O REVANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
GOVT EMPLOYEE
R/AT AGASANAPURA VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571430.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
MFA No. 456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
HDFC ERGO INSURANCE CO LTD
IN FRONT OF SUB URBAN BUS STAND
MAHARAJA COMPLEX
1ST FLOOR, MYSURU-570001.
2. SRI ABDUL NADEEM
S/O ABDUL KUDDUS
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RA/T NO.92, N G O S COLONY
RAJENDRA NAGARA
MYSURU CITY-570007
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A N KRISHNA SWAMY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.10.2019 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1394/2017 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER,
MACT, SRIRANGAPATANA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
MFA No. 456 of 2021
C/W MFA No. 580 of 2021
JUDGMENT
1. These appeals under Section 173(1) of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 3.10.2019 passed by MACT,
Srirangapatna in MVC No.1395/2017 and MVC
No.1394/2017 respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly
stated are that on 3.2.2017 when the claimants were
proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-11-
R-1624 near Petrol Bunk, Hebbakavadi, at that time, rider
of another motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09EL-
0276 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a
rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the
claimants. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the
claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of
the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that they
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
spent huge amount towards medical expenses,
conveyance charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the
accident occurred purely on account of the rash and
negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider.
4. On service of notice, the respondents appeared
through counsel and filed written statements in which the
averments made in the petition were denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimants themselves were examined as
PWs-1 and 2 and Dr.Diwakar was examined as PW-3 and
got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. On
behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as
RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to
Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment,
inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of
rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its
rider, as a result of which, the claimants sustained
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant in
MVC 1394/2017 is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.12,000/- and claimant in MVC 1395/2017 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.121,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. and directed the owner of the offending
vehicle to deposit the compensation amount along with
interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeals have been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the
following contentions:
a) Regarding quantum of compensation: The claimants
have sustained grievous injuries and the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
b) Liability: In respect of liability is concerned, even
though the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the
insured-owner of the offending vehicle on the ground that
the rider of the offending vehicle was not having valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of accident, in view
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
of PAPPU AND ORS. V. VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND
ANR. [AIR 2018 SC 592] and in the case of NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. SWARAN SINGH [(2004) 3
SCC 297] and in view of Full Bench decision of this Court
in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
BIJAPUR vs. YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER [ILR 2020
Kar.2239], even if the driver of the offending vehicle was
not possessing valid driving licence as on the date of
accident, the Insurance Company is liable to pay
compensation to the claimant at the first instance, with
liberty to recover the same from the owner of the
offending vehicle. Hence, he sought for allowing the
appeals filed by the claimants.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has raised following counter
contentions:
a) Regarding quantum of compensation: The injuries
sustained by the claimants are minor in nature.
Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
considering the age and avocation of the claimant, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal are just and
reasonable and it does not call for interference.
b) Liability: It is not in dispute that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on
the date of the accident which amounts to violation of the
terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the Tribunal has
rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from liability
and fastened liability on the owner of the offending
vehicle. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeals.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimants have sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 3.2.2017
due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle
by its rider.
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
10. The claimants have sustained injuries as mentioned
in the wound certificate. Considering the nature of injuries,
age and avocation of the claimants and also considering
the evidences of the claimants and doctor, the overall
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is
just and reasonable.
11. In respect of liability is concerned, the Tribunal after
considering the materials available on record has rightly
given a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was
not having valid driving licence as on the date of the
accident and has fastened the liability on the insured to
pay compensation to the claimants. However, in respect of
claim of the claimants is concerned, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PAPPU
AND OTHERS (supra), and in the case of SWARAN
SINGH (supra) and in view of Full Bench decision of this
Court in the case of YALLAVVA AND ANOTHER (supra),
the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to
the claimants at the first instance, with liberty to the
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:44083
Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner
of the offending vehicle.
12. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
a) The appeals are allowed in part.
b) The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.
c) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount in both the cases as awarded
by the Tribunal along with interest from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the date of realization,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the Insurance
Company is at liberty to recover the said amount
from the owner of the offending vehicle.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
