Karnataka High Court
Vinay Kumar Kalmath vs K. Manjunath S/O Tuljappa on 12 February, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3376
MFA No. 102570 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102570 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VINAY KUMAR KALMATH S/O. BASAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC: SENIOR MANAGER
(ENGINEER TQM, JSW STEEL LTD.,
R/O: TORANGAL, TALUK: SANDUR,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. K. MANJUNATH S/O. TULJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
DRIVER OF CAR NO.KA-34/A-3325,
R/O: H.NO.80, KURABARA STREET,
VILLAGE: RUDRAPAADA,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT-583102.
BHARATHI
HM
2. SRI. K. LAALI SWAMY S/O. ERANNA,
Digitally signed
by BHARATHI
AGE: MAJOR,
HM
Date:
2024.02.21
12:00:57 +0530
OWNER OF CAR NO.KA-34/A-3325,
R/O: MARUTI NILAYA, DURGA COLONY,
3RD CROSS, PATEL NAGAR,
BALLARI-583103.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR, HOTEL MAYURA,
OPP: OLD KSRTC BUS STAND,
BALLARI-583103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R1-2 SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3376
MFA No. 102570 of 2016
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.02.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.72/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-VII AT
HOSAPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for orders, by consent of
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Smt. Soubhagya Vakkund representing Shri.
Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and
Shri. R. R. Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.3-
Insurance Company.
3. Claimant is in appeal challenging the validity of
judgment and award passed in MVC No.72/2012 on the file of
Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal - VII, Hospet, dated 20.02.2016.
4. Admitted facts are as under:
4.1. Claimant being the rider of the motor cycle met
with a road traffic accident on account of rash and negligent
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3376
driving of the driver of the car bearing registration No.KA-34/A-
3325. He sustained injuries and he was shifted to Sanjeevni
Hospital, Torangal and treated by Dr. Shashidhar Reddy. The
claimant laid a claim for awarding suitable compensation.
5. Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record allowed the claim petition in a sum
of Rs.1,86,000/- as under and fastened the liability on the
owner of the car considering that there was no proper
endorsement to drive the car in his driving license.
Sl. Name of the Heads Amount
No.
1 Loss of future income Nil
2 Medical Expenses Ra.15,745-00
3 Future Medical Expenses Nil
4 Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000-00
5 Attendant Charges Rs.10,000-00
6 Loss of Amenities and Future Rs.1,00,000-00
Comforts
7 Nourishment Food and Rs.10,000-00
Supplementary Convenience
charges
8 Loss of Income during laid up Nil
period
Total Rs.1,85,745-00
Rounded off Rs.1,86,000-00
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3376
6. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the quantum
of compensation and fastening the on the owner of the car, the
claimant is in appeal.
7. Smt. Soubhagya Vakkund, learned counsel for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum contended that fastening the liability on the
owner of the car cannot be countenanced in law in view of the
authoritative principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SCC 3668.
8. She also sought for enhanced compensation on the
ground that there is no award of compensation on the head of
loss of income during the laid up period and sought for
enhancement.
9. Per contra, Shri. R. R. Mane, learned counsel
representing Insurance Company contended that the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal itself is on the higher
side, inasmuch as, for the loss of amenities the Tribunal has
granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and the claimant continued in
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3376
the same bar. Therefore, the quantum of compensation is to
be reduced.
10. He further contended that the interest is awarded
by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is also on the higher side.
11. Insofar as shifting the liability is concerned, he
submitted that the Court may pass suitable orders in view of
the principles of law enunciate in the case of Mukund Dewangan
(supra).
12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
13. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that the claimant has suffered two fractures.
14. As rightly contended by the Shri. R. R. Mane,
learned counsel for the respondent No.3, the award of
compensation on the head of loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- is
awarded which is on the higher side.
15. No doubt there is no amount awarded on the head
of loss of income during laid up period. Therefore, a case is
made out to award compensation on the head of loss of income
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3376
during laid up period. But on perusal of the quantum of
compensation on the head of loss of amenities. Thus, instead
of modifying the quantum of compensation by reassessment, if
the quantum of compensation is maintained as it is and so also
taking note of the fact that interest awarded at 9% per annum,
ends of justice would be met.
16. This would take us to the next limb of argument on
behalf of the appellant that the liability is to be shifted to
Insurance Company of car in question in view of the principles
of law enunciated in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra).
17. There is sufficient force in the said arguments,
therefore, a case is made out to shift the liability to Insurance
Company of the car.
18. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the quantum of
compensation in a sum of Rs.1,86,000/- with
interest at the rate of 9% from the date of
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3376
petition till realization, the compensation amount
is ordered to be paid by third respondent-
Insurance Company.
(iii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMM
