Karnataka High Court
Ramappa vs Sameer And Anr on 12 January, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1 MFA No.201288/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
MFA NO.201288/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN
Ramappa S/o Revappa Harijan
Age: 64 Years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Mavinahalli, Tq. Indi
Dist. Vijayapur, now at Ibrahimpurpeth
Vijayapur-586 101
...Appellant
(By Sri Babu H. Metagudda, Advocate)
AND
1. Sameer S/o Yunus Makandar
Age: 39 Years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Tq. Indi, Dist. Vijayapur-586 101
2. The Manager Legal
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
10003-E-8, RIICO, Industrial Area Sita Pura
Jaipur, Rajastan-3020222
...Respondents
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R2;
R-1 served)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle
ACt, 1988, praying to allow this appeal and modify the
2 MFA No.201288/2018
judgment and award dated 30.10.2017 passed in MVC
No.1712/2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV &
III Addl. District Judge, Vijayapur and enhance the
compensation from Rs.2,16,000/- with 9% interest to
Rs.9,75,000/- with 12% interest and direct the 2nd
respondent insurance company to pay the entire
compensation to the appellant/claimant, in the interest of
justice and equity and etc.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Not being satisfied with the quantum of
compensation, claimant is before this Court in this
appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that on
08.07.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. near Amar Super
Market, Indi, he was standing by the side of Indi-
Agarkhed Road. At that time, a Lorry bearing
registration No.KA-28/B-1051, driven by its driver in a
rash or negligent manner came and dashed against
him. As a result of the accident, the petitioner
sustained grievous injuries. Inspite of prolonged
treatment, he is not completely cured. The injuries
have resulted in permanent partial disability.
4. As the owner and insurer of the offending
vehicle respondents are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation.
5. Though appeared through counsel,
respondent No.1 has not filed written statement.
6. Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel
and filed written statement admitting the coverage of
the offending vehicle, it has denied the age,
occupation, income of the petitioner and also nature
of the injuries sustained and that they have resulted
in permanent and partial disability. The driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence and as such it is not liable to pay the
compensation.
7. Based on these pleadings, the Tribunal
framed necessary issues.
8. Petitioner got examined himself as PW.1
and relied upon Exs.P1 to 10.
9. On behalf of respondent No.2, one witness
is examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 to 4 are marked.
10. Vide the impugned judgment and award
the Tribunal has partly allowed the petition and
granted compensation in a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- with
interest at 9% per annum. The Tribunal has
exonerated respondent No.2 from paying the
compensation on the ground that at the time of
accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not
holding a valid driving licence and therefore saddled
the liability on respondent No.1 - Owner.
11. The details of the compensation granted
by the Tribunal are as under:
Sl.No. Compensation head Amount
awarded
1. Pain and suffering Rs.69,000/-
2. Diet, Conveyance and Rs.14,000/-
attendant charges
3. Loss of income during Rs.14,800/-
laid up period and rest
for two months
4. Loss of amenities and Rs.30,000/-
unhappiness in life
5. Medical expenses Rs.88,744/-
Total Rs.2,16,544/-
12. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the
impugned judgment and award.
13. During the course of argument, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that having
regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the compensation granted under all the
heads is on the lower side and requires
reconsideration. The tribunal has grossly erred in
coming to the conclusion that the driver was not
holding valid driving licence. At the most, respondent
No.2 may be directed to pay and recover the
compensation from respondent No.1 - Owner.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 supported the impugned judgment
and award and prays to order for pay and recovery as
per the judgment of the Apex Court in Pappu & Ors
vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. 1
15. Heard arguments and perused the records.
16. The fact that as on the date of accident the
offending vehicle was covered by a valid policy issued
by respondent No.2 is not in dispute. Based on the
complaint filed by the petitioner, after conducting
detailed investigation the concerned police have filed
(2018) 3 SCC 208
charge-sheet against the driver of the offending
vehicle which is a Lorry coming under the category of
heavy goods vehicle. The testimony of PW.1 coupled
with the documents placed on record to prove the fact
that petitioner sustained the injuries in question in the
accident involving the offending vehicle.
17. Through the testimony of R.W.1
respondent No.2 has produced the copies of Insurance
Policy, R.C. particulars, Permit and D.L. extract. As
per Ex.R4 the driver of the offending vehicle was
holding driving licence to drive the transport vehicle
with effect from 22.08.2014 to 21.08.2017. However,
the accident has taken place on 08.07.2014. In other
words, as on the date of accident he was not holding a
valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle.
Therefore, there is violation of policy condition.
However, as per Pappu's case (supra) in case of
violation of terms of policy the respondent No.2 -
Insurance company cannot escape from the liability of
paying the compensation to the third party. It is liable
to pay the compensation and recover the same from
respondent No.1 - Owner. To this extent the
impugned judgment and award is liable to be
modified.
18. Sofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, having regard to the nature of the injuries
sustained, period of treatment and medical bills
produced, the compensation granted by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable. Having approached this court,
at the most a global compensation of Rs.25,000/- may
be granted by way of enhancement and accordingly I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Appellant/petitioner is entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.2,41,544/-
as against Rs.2,16,544/- granted by the
Tribunal together with interest at 6% per
annum on the enhanced compensation &
recover the same from respondent No.1
- Owner.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the
compensation together with accrued
interest within a period of six weeks
from the date of this order (minus the
compensation already paid/deposited).
(iv) Registry is directed to send copy of this
order to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
