Karnataka High Court
Reliance Genral vs Narasimha Raju on 8 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:5819
MFA No. 3323 of 2016
C/W MFA No.9241/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3323 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9421 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.3323/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARASIMHA RAJU
S/O PREMANNA,
NOW AGED 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.517,
NORTH BLOCK, UPKAR RESIDENCY,
BENGALURU-560 015,
ALSO RESIDING AT: KUMBARAHALLI,
GODAGERE POST,
SIRA TALUK, PIN CODE-572 137
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by (BY SRI. MANMOHAN D., ADVOCATE)
BHARATHI S
Location: AND:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. SRI MANSOOR ALI KHAN
S/O BABU KHAN, AGED MAJOR,
C/O INDIA TRAILOR CORPORATION FLEET
OWNERS & TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS,
SHOP NO.7, NEAR COTTON GREEN
RAILWAY STATION,
MUMBAI-400033,
MAHARASTRA STATE.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
EAST WING, M.G.ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:5819
MFA No. 3323 of 2016
C/W MFA No.9241/2015
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 7.2.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1290/12 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.9421/2015
BETWEEN:
1. RELIANCE GENRAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR
CENTENARY BUILDING
EAST WING ROAD, M G ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
REGIONAL OFFICE
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING
NO.28 M G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NARASIMHA RAJU
S/O PREMANNA
NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.517, NORTH BLOCK
UPKAR RESIDENCY, BANGALORE-15
AND ALSO R/AT KUMBARAHALLI
GODAGERE POST
SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-12
2. MANSOOR ALI KHAN
S/O BABU KHAN
C/O INDIA TRAILOR CORPORATION
FLEET OWNERS AND TRANSPORT
CONTRACTORS, SHOP NO.7
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:5819
MFA No. 3323 of 2016
C/W MFA No.9241/2015
NEAR COTTON GREEN RAILWAY STATION
MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA-01
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D MANMOHAN., ADVOCATE FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 22.7.2016)
THIS IS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1290/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE 12TH ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.131800/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A., FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.3323/2016 is filed by the claimant and MFA
No.9421/2015 is filed by the insurer. In both the appeals, the
judgment and award dated 6.11.2015 passed in MVC
No.1290/2012 is assailed. Hence, both the appeals are taken
up together for consideration.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred as per their rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeals are that claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on
20.11.2010, the claimant filed the claim petition. The Tribunal
awarded a total compensation of `1,31,800/- together with
NC: 2024:KHC:5819
interest @ 8% per annum. The Tribunal has recorded a finding
that there was a violation of permit condition. However, the
Tribunal has ordered that the compensation awarded shall be
paid jointly and severally by the owner and insurer and in view
of the policy of insurance, directed the insurer to deposit the
compensation awarded. Being aggrieved, the appeals are filed
by the insurer. The claimant has filed the appeal seeking for
enhancement of compensation awarded.
4. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the
Tribunal having recorded a finding that there was violation of
permit condition ought not to have fastened the liability on the
insurer to pay the compensation awarded.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that
having regard to the finding recorded with regard to permit
violation and in view of the judgment of Amrit Paul Singh
and another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company
Limited and others1, that the insurer is liable to pay the
compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same from
the owner of the vehicle. He further submits that the
(2018) 7 SCC 558
NC: 2024:KHC:5819
compensation awarded is on the lower side and the same is
required to be enhanced.
6. The submissions made by both the learned
counsels have been considered and the material on record
including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. The
questions that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal on
liability is just and proper?
ii. Whether the quantum of compensation
requires to be enhanced?
Re: question No.(i):
7. The finding of fact that there was violation of permit
condition is not much in dispute. Having regard to the same
and having regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh1, the insurer is liable to
pay the compensation awarded with liberty to recover the same
from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, question No.(i) is
answered partly in the Affirmative.
NC: 2024:KHC:5819
Re: Question No.(ii):
8. The claimant is aged 25 years. He is stated to be a
Mason and also carrying out agricultural activities. The
Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at `6,000/-
per month in the absence of any material on record to prove
the income. The assessment of income by the Tribunal is
marginally on the higher side.
9. It is forthcoming that the claimant has sustained
fracture of left tibia and fibula. That he was treated as an
inpatient for four days. The Doctor has been examined as PW.3
who has deposed that the fractures were treated conservatively
by putting a cast. The Doctor has assessed the permanent
disability of the claimant at 11%. The Tribunal upon
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence has re-
assessed the same at 5% to the whole body which is marginally
on the lower side. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
towards loss of amenities, conveyance, food, nourishment and
attendant charges are also marginally on the lower side.
10. Having regard to the factual aspect of the matter
and upon re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
NC: 2024:KHC:5819
on record including the evidence of the Doctor, it is just and
proper that an enhancement of `25,000/- be awarded together
with interest @ 6% per annum.
11. In view of the aforementioned, I pass the following
ORDER
i) No.3323/2016 is filed by the claimant and MFA
No.9421/2015 filed by the insurer are partly
allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 6.11.2015 passed
in MVC No.1290/2012 is modified to the extent
stated hereinabove. In all other respects, the
judgment and award of the Tribunal remains
unaltered;
iii) The claimant-appellant in MFA No.3323/2016 is
entitled to a further compensation of `25,000/-
together with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization in
addition the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
iv) The appellant - insurer in MFA No.9421/2015 is
liable to pay the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal as also the enhancement made by this
NC: 2024:KHC:5819
Court, with liberty to recovery the same form the
owner of the vehicle who is arrayed as
Respondent No.1 in the proceedings before the
Tribunal.
v) The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA
No.9421/2015 shall be transited for disbursement
in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
vi) The insurer shall deposit the balance
compensation amount within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
vii) Registry to draw modified decree
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BS
