Karnataka High Court
Maturabai And Ors vs Sidram And Anr on 3 January, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:92-DB
MFA No. 200960 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200960 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MATURABAI W/O MALLAPPA WAGHMORE,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SUREKHA D/O MALLAPPA WAGHMORE,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
3. SHRIDEVI D/O MALLAPPA WAGHMORE,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, WORK,
4. JAYASHREE D/O MALLAPPA WAGHMORE,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
RAMESH
MATHAPATI
5. RAJKUMAR S/O MALLAPPA WAGHMORE,
Location: HIGH AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
6. SHASHIKANT S/O MALLAPPA WAGHMORE,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
ALL ARE R/O KEERTI NAGAR,
VIJAYAPAUR-586101.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:92-DB
MFA No. 200960 of 2022
AND:
1. SIDRAM S/O RAMCHANDRA DHULE,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KANDALGAON, TQ: SOUTH SOLAPUR,
DIST: SOLAPUR-413001,
(MAHARASHTRA STATE)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
S-5, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTORY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SANGEETA BHADRASHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO,
MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.01.2022
PASSED IN MVC NO. 1863/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT
OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.VI VIJAYAPURA AT
VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL TO GRANT THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT BY RS.34,34,300/- ONLY AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE
COURT. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
B.M.SHYAM PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants in MVC No.1863/2014 on the file of
I-Addl. Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Vijayapura [for short, 'the
Tribunal'] have filed this appeal calling in question the
Tribunal's judgment and award dated 01.01.2022. The
Tribunal by this impugned judgment and award has granted
NC: 2024:KHC-K:92-DB
compensation of Rs.65,700/- to the appellants directing the
owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.MH-13/BD-
8180 [offending vehicle] to pay such compensation along
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Tribunal has
dismissed the claim petition as against the second
respondent - the Insurer. The Tribunal has held that the
first appellant, the wife of the deceased, Sri. Mallappa
Waghmore, will be entitled for 50% of the compensation and
the other appellants, Sri. Mallappa Waghmore's children,
will be entitled for 10% each.
2. Sri. Bapugouda Siddappa, the learned counsel
for the appellants, submits that the appellants have filed
this appeal being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded and the dismissal of the claim petition as against
the Insurer directing the first respondent to pay the
compensation as awarded. The learned counsel elaborates
that the Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.65,700/- as
medical expenses without granting any other compensation
because of its conclusion that the Sri. Mallappa Waghmore
did not die because of the injuries suffered in the accident,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:92-DB
and regards the Insurer being absolved, the learned counsel
submits that the Insurer is absolved only because the driver
of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence.
Smt. Sangeeta Bhadrashetty, the learned counsel for the
insurer, is heard in the light of these submissions and the
records are perused.
3. It is not in dispute that Sri. Mallappa Waghmore
met with the accident on 25.02.2013 when he was riding on
the pillion with the first respondent; that the deceased was
immediately taken to Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya Ani
Sanshodhan Kendra Nyt., Solapur; that he was an inpatient
with this hospital until his discharge on 04.03.2013; that he
has died on 16.11.2013; that during this period between
March and November 2013 he was intermittently
hospitalized as he was severely diabetic and was diagnosed
as suffering from diabetic nephropathy; that even as of the
date of his admission immediately after accident he had
abscess; and that the appellants have not examined any
doctor to establish the nexus between the injuries suffered
in the accident and the death.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:92-DB
4. The appellants grievance as against the
Tribunal's conclusion that they have failed to establish the
nexus as aforesaid must necessarily be examined in the light
of these undisputed facts. Sri. Mallappa Waghmore has met
with an accident in the month of February 2013, and he has
died nine months later in November. Sri. Mallappa
Waghmore was suffering from urinary tract infection and
diabetic nephropathy. This Court is of the considered
opinion that from the afore, because of his pre-existing
conditions, it cannot be reasonably inferred that
Sri. Mallappa Waghmore has died because of the injuries
suffered in the accident.
5. However, it is not disputed that Sri. Mallappa
Waghmore suffered certain injuries to the spine in the
accident. This Court must examine whether the Tribunal is
justified in granting a sum of Rs.65,700/- towards medical
expenses when it is undisputed that he suffered certain
spinal injuries. Sri Mallappa Waghmore was hospitalized for
a period of about 10 days because of spinal injuries, and it
would be indubitable that he would have suffered certain
NC: 2024:KHC-K:92-DB
pain and there must be just compensation for the same. On
a careful consideration of the material on record, this Court
is of the considered view that there must be enhancement of
the compensation by Rs.50,000/- but as a global sum.
6. The appellants are indeed aggrieved because the
Insurer is absolved, but they have not brought on record any
ground to justify the grievance except insofar as contending
that the Insurer must be made to pay the compensation but
with liberty to recover the same from the first respondent.
This Court must observe that it is now settled that if the
Insurer is able to establish that there is a breach of policy
terms inasmuch as the vehicle was driven by a person who
did not have a valid driving licence, the Insurer must pay the
compensation to the third party and recover the same from
the owner of the vehicle. In the light of the foregoing, the
following:
ORDER
[i] The appeal is allowed in part.
[ii] The appellants are held to be entitled to
receive an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as
NC: 2024:KHC-K:92-DB
global sum. The second respondent - Insurer
is called upon to pay this global sum and the
amount of Rs.65,700/- awarded by the
Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment. The second respondent shall be
entitled to recover the amount from the first
respondent.
[iii] If there is any delay in depositing the
aforesaid amounts, the second respondent
shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of
6% per annum on the global sum as now
awarded. The Tribunal shall disburse the
entire compensation to the appellants
according to its order of apportionment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SDU
CT : CS
