Karnataka High Court
Reliance Genral Insurance Co.Ltd vs Ramachandrappa on 8 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6802
MFA No. 3325 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 9422 of 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. 3325 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9422 OF 2015 (MV-I)
IN MFA No.3325/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O. NARASIMHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 517, NORTH BLOCK,
UPKAR RESIDENCY,
BENGALURU 560015.
ALSO RESIDING AT KUMBARAHALLI,
GODAGERE POST, SIRA TALUK
PINCODE 572137.
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
Digitally (BY SRI. MANMOHAN D., ADVOCATE)
signed by
BHARATHI S AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. SRI MANSOOR ALI KHAN
KARNATAKA S/O. BABU KHAN, AGED MAJOR,
C/O INDIA TRAILOR CORPORATION FLEET,
OWNERS AND 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,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6802
MFA No. 3325 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 9422 of 2015
EAST WING M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B PRADEEP., ADVOCATE FOR R2
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 8.2.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1291/12 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.9422/2015
BETWEEN:
1. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
EAST WING ROAD, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-56001.
NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING,
NO.28, M.G.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAMACHANDRAPPA
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
NOW AGED ABOUT 58 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 & TRANSPORT,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:6802
MFA No. 3325 of 2016
C/W MFA No. 9422 of 2015
CONTRACTORS, SHOP NO.7,
NEAR COTTON GREEN RAILWAY STATION,
MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-01.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D MANMOHAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R1
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 8.2.2024)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1291/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.5,10,473/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA No.3325/2016 is filed by the claimant and MFA
No.9422/2015 is filed by the insurer. In both the appeals, the
judgment and award dated 6.11.2015 passed in MVC
No.1291/2012 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
NC: 2024:KHC:6802
awarded a total compensation of `5,10,473/- together with
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 present appeals
are filed.
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 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 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:6802
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:6802
Re: Question No.(ii):
8. The claimant is aged 60 years. He is stated to be a
Mason. 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
multiple fracture of right femur and hip bone of both legs. The
claimant was inpatient for six months and 24 days. The Doctor
has been examined as PW.3 who has stated that the disability
is 39% of permanent physical impairment in his both lower limb
contributing to whole body disability. However, in the cross-
examination, the doctor admits that whole body disability is
13%. The Tribunal upon consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence has assessed the whole body disability
at 13%. The Tribunal has awarded sufficient compensation on
various heads.
10. Having regard to the factual aspect of the matter
and upon re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
on record including the evidence of the Doctor, it is just and
NC: 2024:KHC:6802
proper that an enhancement of `40,000/- be awarded
together with interest @ 6% per annum.
11. In view of the aforementioned, I pass the following
ORDER
i) MFA No.9422/2015 filed by the insurer and MFA
No.3325/2016 is filed by the claimant are partly
allowed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 6.11.2015 passed
in MVC No.1291/2012 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.3325/2016 is
entitled to a further compensation of `40,000/-
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.9422/2015 is
liable to pay the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal as also the enhancement made by this
Court with liberty to recovery the same form the
owner of the vehicle who is arrayed as
NC: 2024:KHC:6802
Respondent No.1 in the proceedings before the
Tribunal.
v) The amount deposited by the appellant in MFA
No.9422/2015 shall be transmitted to the
Tribunal 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
