Karnataka High Court
Revansiddappa vs Mahesh And Anr on 11 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
MFA No. 200429 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200655 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200429 OF 2020 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200655 OF 2020 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.200429 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
REVANSIDDAPPA S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR SANGA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O. # 8-1545/81/C, BHAVANI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585105.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MAHESH S/O NAGENDRAPPA VISHWAKARMA,
AGE: 37 YEARS OCC:DRIVER CUM OWNER,
R/O KAVALGA (B), TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI-585105.
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN 2. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Location: High E-8, EPIP, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
Court of JAIPUR-302022, RAJASHTAN STATE.
Karnataka
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY
THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, KALABURAGI,
IN MVC NO.308/2016, DATED 18.11.2019 BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
MFA No. 200429 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200655 of 2020
IN MFA NO. 200655 OF 2020:
BETWEEN:
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPIP, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
JAIPUR-302022, RAJASHTAN STATE.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BANGALORE-560076.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. REVANSIDDAPPA
S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR SANGA,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
R/O. # 8-1545-81-C, BHAVANI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585101.
2. MAHESH S/O NAGENDRAPPA VISHWAKARMA,
AGE: 37 YEARS OCC:DRIVER CUM OWNER,
R/O KAVALGA (B),
TQ & DIST: KALABURAGI-585302.
...RESPONDENTS
(SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD IN M.V.C. NO.308/2016,
DATED: 18.11.2019, PASSED BY THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT
KALABURAGI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
MFA No. 200429 of 2020
C/W MFA No. 200655 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for admission, with
the consent of both the learned counsels, they are taken
up for final disposal.
Aggrieved by the award passed in MVC No.308/2016,
dated 18.11.2019, by the Court of I-Addl. Senior Civil
Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi, both the claimant as well as
the insurance company are before this Court. Claimant's
appeal for enhancement is numbered as MFA
No.200429/2020 and the appeal of the insurance company
is numbered as MFA No.200655/2020.
2. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation
of an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by
him in the motor vehicle accident that took place on
25.07.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that on
25.07.2015 at about 10:00 p.m. the petitioner along with
his friends were going to Shahapur for repairing the
vehicle and they were proceeding on Mahindra Max
bearing its Reg.No.KA-19/Z-3941, near Hasanapur cross
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
on NH-218, at about 11:00 p.m. the driver of Cruiser
vehicle bearing its Reg.No.KA-31/B-2565 (for short,
'offending vehicle') came from opposite side with high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to
Mahindra Max vehicle, due to which the petitioner
sustained fracture of left clavicle, COLW over forehead,
chest and other grievous injuries to other parts of his
body. The petitioner was shifted to United hospital,
Kalaburagi, wherein he has taken treatment as inpatient
from 26.07.2015 to 30.07.2015 and undergone operation
of CRIP with titanium nail on 28.07.2015 and he is still
under treatment for which he has spent huge amount
towards medical expenses and requires more money for
future medical expenses.
3. It is the case of the insurance company that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the
petitioner has not arrayed the owner and insurer of the
said vehicle to the claim petition as respondents and on
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
the ground of not adding proper and necessary parties,
the appellant/petitioner's appeal has to be dismissed.
4. The Court below when comes to the issue of not
holding the valid and effective driving licence had relied on
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Company
Limited1 held that the driver who is holding a licence to
drive the light motor vehicle can drive the transport
vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that
effect as per Ex.R3 the offending vehicle is cruiser jeep
vehicle of which unladen weight is 1780 kgs which comes
under the category of light motor vehicle. Then coming to
the aspect of compensation according to peitioner and as
per the evidence of doctor the disability assessed at 17%
to the whole body and he is working as a mechanic and
earning monthly income of Rs.15,000/-. The Court below
has disbelieved the evidence of the doctor and has not
(2017) 14 SCC 663
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
considered the disability and granted compensation under
various heads as follows:
Sl. Heads Compensation
Awarded
No.
1. Towards pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000/-
2. Towards medical expenses : Rs. 18,000/-
Towards food and extra
3. : Rs. 1,600/-
nourishment and medical attendant
4. Towards conveyance : Rs. 10,000/-
5. Towards loss of income during : Rs. 14,000/-
treatment
6. Deprivation of future amenities : Rs. 20,000/-
Total : Rs. 1,03,600/-
5. Learned counsel appearing for the pettitioner
submits that when the doctor has deposed that the
claimant has suffered disability at 17% to the whole body,
the Court below ought to have awarded compensation
under the head loss of future income. The Tribunal has
failed to consider the evidence on record. Therefore,
seeks to allow the appeal of the appellant and enhance the
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
insurance company submits that the owner cum driver of
the offending vehicle cruiser maxicab was not holding valid
and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident.
It is further contended that there was no permit to the
said insured vehicle as on the date of the alleged accident
as the owner has failed to produce. Then adverse
inference has to be drawn and the same is in violation of
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay
compensation. Hence, seeks to allow the appeal filed by
the insurance company and to dismiss the appeal filed by
he appellant/claimant.
7. Having heard the learned counsels on either
side, perused the material on record. First issue with
regard to not having driving licence and not having permit
and violating the terms and conditions of the policy are
considered, the Court below with regard to driving licence
applying the ratio laid down in Mukund Dewangan's
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
case referred to supra has held that the driver was having
valid and effective driving licence to drive the light motor
vehicle. Then coming to the aspect of permit, the
insurance company has to produce the necessary evidence
and prove the same, but in this case nothing else has been
done. According to them the owner who appeared before
the Court has not produced the set of evidence. Hence, in
the considered opinion of this case the Court below had
rightly held that the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation.
8. Then coming to the compensation and
enhancement sought by the claimant, he had sustained
fracture of clavicle, forehead and other injuries over parts
of the body. The Court below had granted compensation:-
a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering; an
amount of Rs.18,000/- awarded towards medical
expenses; on these two counts no interference is called
from this Court.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
9. The Court below has granted compensation in a
sum of Rs.1,600/- towards food and nourishment and
medical attendant; and Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance,
which is on the lower side and the same is enhanced to
Rs.20,000/- towards food, nourishment, medical
attendant charges and conveyance.
10. The Court below has granted in a sum of
Rs.14,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.
Though petitioner claim that he was earning Rs.15,000/-
per month, he has failed to produce any evidence,
therefore having regard to the nature of injuries sustained
it would be expected that petitioner was under treatment
atleast for a period of three months and as per the chart
prepared by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority this
Court is taking Rs.8,000/- as normal income, therefore, at
the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month he is entitled for a sum
of Rs.24,000/- [Rs.8,000/- x 3] towards loss of loss of
income during laid up period.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
11. Then coming to the disability the doctor's
evidence do not contend and on what basis he had come
to conclusion that there is 17% disability, the learned
counsel for the insurance company submits that there
cannot be a disability for injury of clavicle bone and as
evidence of the doctor was not inspiring any confidence,
this Court has no reasons to interfere with the same.
12. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered and
the petitioner is a mechanic, the Court below has granted
compensation under the head loss of amenities is on the
lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of amenities.
13. Further, 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.
(2014) 11 SCC 178
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
14. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Sl. Heads Compensation
Awarded
No.
1. Towards pain and suffering : Rs. 40,000/-
2. Towards medical expenses : Rs. 18,000/-
Towards food and extra
3. nourishment and medical attendant : Rs. 20,000/-
and conveyance
4. Towards loss of income during : Rs. 24,000/-
treatment
5. Loss of amenities : Rs. 40,000/-
6. Legal expenses : Rs. 10,000/-
Total : Rs. 1,52,000/-
15. Accordingly, the appeal of the insurance
company in MFA No.200655/2020 is Dismissed.
16. The appeal of the claimant in MFA
No.200429/2020 is allowed-in-part, enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.1,03,600/- to
Rs.1,52,000/-.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at
6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
ii) The respondent/insurance company shall
deposit the amount within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the
judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records, if any, to the Tribunal, along with
certified copy of the order passed by this Court
forthwith without any delay.
iv) The amount in deposit by the insurance
company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal
forthwith for disbursal.
v) No costs.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:485
Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
Judge
SDU
CT: CS
