Karnataka High Court
Nanjappa vs Ramesh on 24 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42564
MFA No. 3714 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 3714 OF 2014 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
NANJAPPA
S/OLATE MUNINANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKA KADATHUR VILLAGE
NOW R/AT SULUR VILLAGE
KOLAR TALUK - 563 101 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SACHIN KUMAR N. M., ADV. FOR
SRI. H.PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAMESH
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGE MAJOR, BETTA BENEJENAHALLI
VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK - 563 101
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BAGALUR MANSION, DODDAPET
KOLAR - 563 101. REP BY ITS MANAGER
Digitally signed by ...RESPONDENTS
MALA K N
(BY SRI. OMKARESHA, ADV. FOR R1;
Location: HIGH COURT SRI.C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV. FOR R2)
OF KARNATAKA
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.1.2014
PASSED IN MVC NO.28/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, KOLAR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42564
MFA No. 3714 of 2014
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioner has challenged the
judgment and award dated 16.01.2014 in
M.V.C.No.28/2011 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil
Judge M.A.C.T., Kolar ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 02.03.2011 at
about 08:00 am while the petitioner was standing at
Dodda Kadathur Gate of Malur Taluk, he was hit by a
motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/EN-4505 which
came from Kollar side, injuring him. The petitioner
after taking treatment at S.N.R. Hospital, Kolar and
Amulya Orthopedic Centre, Kolar, approached the
Tribunal for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
Claim was opposed by the owner and insurer of the
motor cycle. The Tribunal after taking the evidence,
by impugned judgment awarded compensation of
NC: 2023:KHC:42564
Rs.34,000/- with 6% interest p.a. directing the
owner of the motor cycle to pay the compensation.
Pleading inadequacy, seeking enhancement and
challenging the fastening the liability against the
owner of the motor cycle, the petitioenr has filed this
appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Sachin
Kumar. N.M, learned counsel on behalf of
Sri. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. Omkaresha, learned counsel
for respondent No.1 and of Sri. C. Shankar Reddy,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has suffered open
fracture of left tibia, he was under hospitalization for
30 days, being 55 year old Coolie, spent huge money
towards treatment; he was also laid-up for several
months and the compensation assessed by the
Tribunal is only towards pain and sufferings and
NC: 2023:KHC:42564
medical expenses. The Tribunal did not consider
that there is a valid insurance by respondent No.2
and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation and sought for interference.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the owner of
the motor cycle has contended that the Tribunal has
correctly assessed the compensation, owner has
taken a valid insurance from the Insurance Company
and the liability has to be indemnified by the
Insurance Company.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
has contended that the accident took place on
02.03.2011, whereas the policy of insurance was
taken on 19.03.2011, the policy will not operate
retrospectively. If the owner of the motor cycle has
insured for 02.03.2011, the compensation has to be
asked from the said Insurance Company and the
Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance
NC: 2023:KHC:42564
Company from indemnifying the owner of the motor
cycle and he supported the impugned judgment.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused
the materials on record.
9. The material on record did point out that
there was an accident on 02.03.2011, the petitioner
has hit by the motor cycle in question, causing him
the open fracture of left tibia. He was treated under
hospitalization for 30 days, he was a Coolie, aged 55
years. Ex.P10/prescriptions point out that a sum of
Rs.14,262/- was spent towards treatment. The
Tribunal has awarded only the medical expenses and
Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings. But, in a
case of this nature, the petitioner has to be
compensated under various heads. The reason
assigned by the Tribunal is not proper. The
petitioner has not examined the Medical Officer who
treated him in order to produce any disability
NC: 2023:KHC:42564
certificate affecting his earning capacity. But, a
person doing Coolie, suffering open fracture requires
minimum of 4 months' rest and therefore, loss of
income during laid-up for 4 months has to be
awarded. The petitioner is entitled to compensation
towards loss of amenities and discomfort, attendant
charges for 1 month during hospitalization, food and
nourishment and travelling expenses. There is no
evidence that the petitioner has suffered any
disability so as to compensate him for loss of future
earnings. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to
compensation as follows:
Sl. No. Particulars Rs.
1 Pain and sufferings 20,000
6 Medical expenses 14,262
3 Attendant charges 6,500
4 Food and nourishment 3,000
5 Travelling expenses 2,000
6 Loss of income during laid-up 26,000
for 4 months (Rs.6,500/- x 4)
7 Loss of amenities and 20,000
discomfort
Total 91,762
NC: 2023:KHC:42564
Total compensation comes to Rs.91,762/- as against
Rs.34,000/- assessed by the Tribunal, thereby
enhancement of Rs.53,762/-. This is the just
compensation that the petitioner is entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
10. As regarding liability is concerned, the
policy of insurance which is available at Ex.R2 shows
that the motor cycle was insured for a period of
19.03.2011 to 18.03.2012. Ex.R1 is the driving
licence of the motor cycle rider. But unfortunately,
the policy of insurance will not cover the risk of the
accident that took place on 02.03.2011. Hence, the
Tribunal is right in exonerating the liability against
the Insurance Company and therefore, respondent
No.1 being the owner of the motor cycle is alone
liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the appeal
merits consideration, in the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
NC: 2023:KHC:42564
ii) Impugned judgment and award is
modified.
iii) Petitioner is entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.57,762/- with
interest of 6% p.a. from respondent
No.1.
iv) Respondent No.1 is directed to deposit
the compensation within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the judgment.
v) Order of dismissal of the claim against
respondent No.2/Insurance Company is
confirmed.
vi) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
