Karnataka High Court
V Umesh vs Shahina Banu on 27 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:42813
MFA No. 577 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2018 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
V. UMESH,
S/O VENKATAIAH,,
NOW AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT MADENUR BOVI COLONY,
MADENUR POST, KASABA HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
NOW R/AT C/O NAGARAJU,
C/O GOVINDAPPA,
HALNUR BOVI COLONY,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK.
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. V. UMESH, ADVOCATE)
signed by JAI
JYOTHI J
Location:
AND:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. SHAHINA BANU,
KARNATAKA
D/O MOHAMMED JAFFAR,
NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/AT JANATHA COLONY,
HONAVALLI POST,
TIPTUR TALUK - 572 201.
TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
2. KEMPEGOWDA,
S/O NANNJEGOWDA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, BALAGANCHI VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:42813
MFA No. 577 of 2018
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK - 573 116,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
3. THE MANAGER,
ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE
INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NO.133, 3RD FLOOR,
SHIKA TOWERS,
RAMAVILLAS ROAD,
MYSORE - 570 024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED:27.11.2023, NOTICE TO
R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:16.06.2017 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1201/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the claimant aggrieved by
the award passed in M.V.C.No.1201/2015 dated
16.06.2017 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge
and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur. The claim
petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of
NC: 2023:KHC:42813
Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant.
The Court below had awarded compensation of an amount
of Rs.25,000/-.
2. When it comes to the liability, the Court below
held that as the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., the
driver of the Autorikshaw was not having a driving license
to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the compensation and held that the owner of
the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that there is no dispute about the fact that the
driver of the vehicle was having a driving license to drive
the light motor vehicle, but there is no transport
endorsement on the said license. He submits that in the
light of law laid down in the case of Mukund Dewangan
Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited1, even in such case
also Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
Apart from that, it is submitted that the compensation that
AIR 2017 SC 3668
NC: 2023:KHC:42813
was awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the
Court below had failed to consider the injuries sustained
by the claimant and granted global compensation of an
amount of Rs.25,000/- which is on the lower side.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company submits that the compensation that was
awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. Further, it
is submitted that as the driver of the offending vehicle was
not having a driving license to drive a transport vehicle,
the Court below had rightly absolved the Insurance
Company from the liability.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. In this case, as
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant,
this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex
Court in Mukund Dewangan's case, the driver of
offending vehicle was having a valid driving license to
drive a light motor vehicle, but there is no endorsement of
NC: 2023:KHC:42813
transport. In the light of the law laid down in Mukund
Dewangan's case referred supra, this Court holds that
the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
6. Then coming to the compensation granted
globally, in this case, the claimant had not examined the
doctor except producing wound certificate and as per the
wound certificate, the injuries sustained are simple in
nature. This Court is not inclined to enhance the
compensation.
7. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER2, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
Altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount of
*Rs.35,000/-.
(2014) 11 SCC 178
* PARA NO. 7 REPLACED AND RETYPED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED:
20.12.2023*
NC: 2023:KHC:42813
8. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is
allowed-in-part by holding that the Insurance Company
is liable to pay the compensation.
*i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of petition, till the
date of realization. *
ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
iii. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
MEG
CT:SNN
* SUB PARA NO. i INSERTED V/O COURT ORDER DATED : 20.12.2023 *
