Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Chinnamma on 3 January, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:302
MFA No. 5353 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5353 OF 2018 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM GIC LTD,.
DHARE HOUSE 2ND FLOOR,
#2 NSC BOSE ROAD,
CHENNAI-600 001
NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER
SR. MANAGER CLAIMS,
CHOLAMANDALAM M S GIC LTD.,
NO.1/2, GOLDEN HEIGHTS
6TH FLOOR, 59TH C CROSS,
4TH M BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE - 10.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. CHINNAMMA
Digitally signed by
RAMYA D W/OLATE SIDDAIAH
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SMT. PUSHPA H M
W/O LATE S NAGARAJU
AGED ABUT 24 YEARS,
3. MAHADEVASWAMY
S/O. LATE S NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS,
4. MASTER. PRAJWAL
S/O LATE S. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:302
MFA No. 5353 of 2018
ALL ARE RESIDING AT,
ANKAIAHNASHETTYPURA VILLAGE,
HARADANAHLALI HOBLI,
CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK & DIST.
(3RD 4TH RESPONDENTS ARE MINORS,
SO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS REPRESENTED
AS MOTHER)
5. P. CHINNASWAMY
S/O. PONNUSWAMY
AGED ABUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT OPP.
SENGAL SOOLAI, ALAMARATHOTTAM,
THALAVADI PIRKA, SATHYAMANGALA TALUK
EROD DISTRICT - 684 61
(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE)
6. B DODDASHETTY (DEAD BY LRS)
6(a) CHENAJAMMA
W/O DODDASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
6(b) REVANNA
S/O DODDASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
6(c) RAMANNA
S/O DODDASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
6(d) SHARVANNA,
S/O DODDASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
6(e) KRISHNAMURTHY
S/O DODDASHETTY
6(f) SHEELA
D/O DODDASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:302
MFA No. 5353 of 2018
ALL ARE RESIDING
AT # 11/382, DHARAMAPURAM,
DODDAGAJANURU, THALAVADIPIRKA,
EROD DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2, R5 R6(a, b, c, d, e & f) ARE SERVED;
R3 AND R4 MINORS REP BY R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10/04/2018, PASSED IN MVC
NO.320/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE & JMFC., AND MACT, CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.13,49,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF 65 P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance company
questioning the liability to pay compensation and
alternatively to reduce the quantum of compensation
awarded in MVC No.320/2014 by judgment and award
dated 10.04.2018 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC and MACT, Chamarajanagar.
2. The factum of accident and injuries sustained
by the claimant, are not in dispute. The disputed fact is
whether non mentioning of endorsement of driving a
NC: 2024:KHC:302
transport vehicle in a driving licence, entails exoneration of
liability.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the records.
4. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.13,49,000/- and fastened liability on the insurance
company to pay the compensation. It is the submission of
learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company that
driver of Tata Ace vehicle did not have endorsement to
drive a transport vehicle in his driving licence, but the
vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle (transport).
Therefore, it is submitted that there is a violation of
conditions of policy.
5. The issue involved is no more res-integra in
view law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs ORIENTAL INS.CO.LTD
reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663. Therefore, the Tribunal
NC: 2024:KHC:302
is correct in fastening the liability on the
appellant/insurance company to pay the compensation.
6. So far as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, even the Tribunal has erred in making addition
of 50% of income towards future prospects, but the
Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.6,000/- per
month, which ought to have been Rs.8,500/- per month
considering that accident is of the year 2014. The
claimant has not filed an appeal. Therefore, whatever the
submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company that the deduction of income
is more, that is taken care by the less income taken by the
Tribunal. Therefore, the determination of compensation
by over all is found to be just, proper and correct, which
needs no interference. On these grounds, the appeal filed
by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:302
(ii) Registry to send back the trial court records to
the jurisdictional Tribunal.
(iii) Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the
appellant/insurance company.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
