Karnataka High Court
Devendrappa S/O Nijalingappa Badiger vs Basavaraj S/O Hanamanth Patil on 16 January, 2024
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1131
MFA No. 20992 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22013 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20992 OF 2013 (MV)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22013 OF 2013
IN M. F. A. NO.20992 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SRI. DEVENDRAPPA
S/O. NIJALINGAPPA BADIGER,
AGED ABOUT: 46 YEARS,
R/AT: HADARIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ROSHAN CHABBI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.S. BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. BASAVARAJ S/O. HANAMANTH PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT: LINGAUR (SR), TQ: BILAGI,
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
AYUB
DESHNUR
Date:
2024.02.01
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
14:27:45
+0530 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
P.B.ROAD, OPPOSITE KITLE COLLEGE,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD: 09-11-2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.683/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE MEMBER, MACT-VII, BILAGI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1131
MFA No. 20992 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22013 of 2013
IN M. F. A. NO.22013 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
P.B.ROAD, OPPOSITE KITTEL COLLEGE,
DHARWAD REPRESENTED HEREIN BY
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB
OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEVENDRAPPA
S/O. NIJALINGAPPA BADIGER,
AGED: 46 YEARS,OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HADARIHAL VILLAGE,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. BASAVARAJ HANAMANTH PATIL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF GOODS
TOM TOM VEHICLE BEARING NO. KA-29/8863,
R/O: A/P LINGAPUR (SR) VILLAGE,
TQ: BILAGI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD: 09-11-2012 PASSED IN MVC.NO.683/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE MEMBER, MACT-VII, BILAGI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION
OF RS.52,400/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS, COMING ON FOR
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1131
MFA No. 20992 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 22013 of 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Roshan Chabbi, learned counsel for the
appellant - claimant and Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for
the respondent - Insurance Company.
2. These two appeals arise out of judgment and
award passed in MVC No.683/2010 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilagi dated 09.11.2012.
3. MFA No.20992/2013 is filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation and MFA
No.22013/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the liability.
4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of these appeals are as under:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act in respect of a road traffic accident
occurred on 27.01.2010 involving goods Tum-tum vehicle
(three wheeler) bearing No.KA-29/8863. Admittedly, the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1131
claimant - injured suffered injuries in the said accident and
got treated and therefore, filed a claim petition.
5. The claim petition was resisted by filing
necessary written statement by the respondents. The
Tribunal raised necessary issues and after considering the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
parties, allowed the claim petition in part by granting a
sum of Rs.52,400/- as compensation with interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till realization.
6. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant is in
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas
the Insurance Company is also in appeal challenging the
liability.
7. Sri.R.R.Mane, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company contended that the driver did not possess proper
endorsement in the driving licence and also sitting
capacity is one in respect of goods vehicle and admittedly
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1131
the claimant was additional occupant and sought for
allowing his appeal.
8. Sri.Roshan Chabbi contended that the quantum
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate
and sought for suitable enhancement.
9. In view of the rival contentions of the parties,
this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
10. on such perusal of the material on record, in
the case on hand, the accidental injuries sustained by the
claimant involving vehicle bearing No.KA-29/8863 being a
goods vehicle is established by placing necessary oral and
documentary evidence on record.
11. There is no disability certificate issued by the
doctor and injuries sustained by the claimant have been
cured. Taking note of the same, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.38,000/-
towards medical expenses and Rs.4,400/- towards loss of
amenities. No amount is paid as compensation towards
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1131
loss of income during laid up period. Hence, Rs.11,000/- is
to be awarded taking the monthly income as Rs.5,500/-
for a period of two months.
12. Taking note of the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal being on lower side, the same needs to be
reassessed as under:
Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.38,000/-
Loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/-
Nourishment and attendant
charges
loss of income during laid up Rs.11,000/-
period
Total Rs.89,000/-
13. Now coming to the question of challenge as to
the liability of Insurance Company, admittedly, the driver
of the offending vehicle did not possess proper
endorsement in his driving licence.
14. However, the Insurance Company cannot avoid
payment of compensation on the said ground in view of
the authoritative principles of law enunciated in Mukund
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1131
Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668.
15. The second ground only on which the Insurance
Company is trying to avoid the liability is that the seating
capacity of the goods vehicle is only one.
16. However, according to Rule 100 of Motor
Vehicle Rules, three persons would be allowed to travel in
a goods vehicle. Accordingly, the said ground is also not
available to the Insurance Company as the claimant was
travelling along with the goods in the offending vehicle as
on the date of the accident.
17. Accordingly, the appeal of the Insurance
Company needs to be rejected.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, following
order is passed:
ORDER
(i) Appeal filed by Insurance Company in MFA
No.22013/2013 is hereby dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:1131
(ii) Appeal filed by the claimants in MFA
No.20992/2013 is allowed in part.
(iii) As against compensation of Rs.52,400/-
awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant would be
entitled to Rs.89,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
(iv) Impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal stands modified to the above extent.
(v) Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be
transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith
for disbursement.
(vi) Balance amount, if any, is to be paid/deposited
within four weeks from today.
(vii) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
