Karnataka High Court
Sri. Venkatesh Murthy vs Sri. Manjunatha on 9 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8899 OF 2013 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7220 OF 2013 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO.8899/2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE-1, 1ST FLOOR,
SWATHI COMPLEX, MISSION ROAD,
BANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560001
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A M VENKATESH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.VENKATESH MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O SRINIVASAIAH,
Digitally signed R/AT NO.9 (A),
by BHARATHI
S NEAR HUCHANGI DEVI TEMPLE,
Location: HIGH PIPELINE ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA MALLASANDRA, T. DASARAHALLI,
BANGALORE 560057
2. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O. NARASIMHA MURTHY,
R/AT NO.757, BAGALAKUNTE,
HAYANUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560069
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI . JWALA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. M RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 5.6.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.2118/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SCJ., AND XVII ACMM.,
BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,60,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL COMPLETE
REALISATION.
IN MFA NO.7220/2013
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VENKATESH MURTHY
S/O SRINIVASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 9 (A), 5TH CROSS
NEAR HUCHANGI DEVI TEMPLE
PIPELINE ROAD, MALLASANDRA
T DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE-560057
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JWALA KMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. MANJUNATHA
S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY
AGED MAJOR
NO.757, VIDYANAGAR
HAVANUR LAYOUT
BAGALKUNTE, BANGALORE-560073
2. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.1
NOW AT 3RD FLOOR,
UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE,
NO.72, MISSION ROAD,P B NO. 2701
BANGALORE-560027
REP BY ITS MANAGER
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI LAKSHIM NARASIMHA. K, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O DTD
28.2.20217 VK NOT FILED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.06.2013 PASSED IN MVC
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
NO.2118/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE
JUDGE, & XVII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
MFA No.8899/2023 is filed by the Insurer and MFA
No.7220/2023 is filed by the claimant. Both the appeals are
filed challenging the judgment and award dated 05.06.2013
passed in MVC No.2118/2011, by the I Additional Small Cause
Judge, XVII ACMM and Member, MACT, Bangalore, (SCCH-11)1.
Hence both the above appeals are taken up together for
consideration.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
referred to as per the rank before the Tribunal.
3. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of
the present appeals are that on 14.02.2011, at about 10.45
pm., the claimant-appellant2 in MFA.No.7220/2013 and others
were proceeding in a Toyota Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-
2628 belonging to its owner, from Dharmasthala to Bangalore,
1
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'
2
hereinafter referred as 'claimant'
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
when the said car was being driven by its driver at a high speed
in a rash and negligent manner and the said car lost control
and hit against a right side footpath, causing the accident in
question, wherein the claimants sustained injuries. Claiming
compensation for the injuries sustained in the said accident, the
claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal arraying
against the owner and insurer of the car as respondents. The
said claim proceedings were contested by the Respondents.
4. The claimant himself examined as PW-1 and the
Doctor was examined as PW-2. Ex.P1 to 16 were marked in
evidence. The Officer of the insurer was examined as RW-1 and
owner of said vehicle was examined as RW-2. Ex.R1 to R13
were marked in evidence. The Tribunal by its judgment and
award dated 05.06.2013 awarded compensation of
Rs.1,60,000/- per annum together with interest at the rate of
6% per annum and directed to insurer to deposit the
compensation amount.
5. Being aggrieved the insurer filed the appeal
challenging the findings of the Tribunal fastening the liability on
the insurer to pay the compensation awarded. The claimant has
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
filed appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation
awarded.
6. The learned counsel for the insurer submits that
the driver of vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving
license to drive the vehicle. Hence, the liability ought not to
have been fastened on the insurer. He further submits that the
license having expired and the same having not been renewed
in 30 days, insurer is not liable to pay compensation awarded.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the
quantum of compensation awarded is on the lower side and the
same requires to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the
claimants as well as the owner of the vehicle submits that
finding of the Tribunal fastening the liability on insurer is just
and proper and he further submits that having regard to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of MUKUND
DEWAGAN VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
reported in (2017)14 SCC 663 the said finding of the Tribunal
fastening the liability of the insurer is not liable to be interfered
with.
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
8. The submissions of both learned counsels have
been considered and the material on the records have been
perused. The questions that arise for consideration are:
i. Whether the finding of the Tribunal fastening
the liability on the insurer is just and proper
and liable to be interfered with?
ii. Whether the quantum of compensation is
required to be enhanced.
Re. question No.1
9. The insurer in its statement of objections contended
that the driver of the vehicle does not hold an effective driving
license authorising him for driving the vehicle. Apart from said
defence various other defence have also been taken. The owner
of the vehicle has also filed the statement of objections
contending that the driver of the vehicle viz., one
Mr.Chinnaswamy had a valid and effective driving license and
he has duly authorized to drive the vehicle as on the date of
the accident.
10. RW.1 who has examined on behalf of the insurer
has produced 11 documents marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.11. The
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
owner who examined himself as RW.2 has marked the extract
of the driving license as Ex.R.12.
11. It is forthcoming from the perusal of Ex.R.12 that
the driver was authorized to drive motor cycle from
10.12.1999, Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) - Non Transport (NT)
from 23.08.2019 and LMV transport cab from 28.04.2004. It is
also forthcoming that the validity of the Non Transport
endorsement is up to 23.08.2019 and the validity of the
Transport endorsement is up to 31.05.2010.
12. Hence it is clear that as on date of the accident i.e.,
14.2.2011, the transport endorsement had expired since its
validity was upto 30.05.2010 and the same was not renewed.
However, this will not entitle the insurer to avoid liability. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MUKUND DEWAGAN VS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., reported in
(2017)14 SCC 663 has held as follows;
8. It is apparent from the pre-amended provision
which existed before the amendment made in the
year 1994 that class or description of the vehicle
for which licence used to be issued were
categorised inter alia as light motor vehicle,
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor
vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger
motor vehicle and motor vehicle of a specified
description. Transport vehicle was not a separate
class, and it could be categorised under Sections
10(1)(d) to (h)
(emphasis supplied)
13. In view of the aforementioned, it is clear that the
finding of the Tribunal regarding liability is just and proper.
Hence, question No.1 is answered in the negative.
Re Question No.2:
14. With regard to the quantum of compensation it is
relevant to note that the claimant was a barber and he was
stated to be running hair cutting shop. However, no documents
are produced to show the income of the claimant. The Tribunal
has not recorded any findings regarding the income of the
claimant. Having regard to the fact that no document regarding
income of the claimant have been produced, it is just and
proper that the assessment of income as per the chart followed
for settlement of the case in lok-adalath conducted by the High
Court Legal Service Authority be taken and the accident being
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
of the year 2011, the income of the claimant is assessed as
Rs.6,500/-.
15. The claimant being aged 30 years the appropriate
multiplier to be adopted is '17'.
16. It is forthcoming from the wound certificate
(Ex.P.7), the case summary and discharge record (Ex.P.8) that
the claimant has suffered fracture of both bones of the forearm
as well as fracture of the mid shaft of the bilateral femur. The
claimant was admitted as in-patient on 15.02.2011 and
discharged on 12.03.2011. It is forthcoming from the case
summary and the discharge record (Ex.P.9) the claimant has
been admitted on 08.04.2011 and discharged on 12.04.2011.
Hence, the claimant took treatment as in patient for a total
period of 32 days. The fracture of the right forearm and the
right femur has been surgically treated and subsequently the
implant was removed.
17. The Doctor has been examined as PW.1 who has
stated regarding the injuries and treatment and further stated
that the whole body disability of the claimant is 34.3%. The
Tribunal upon consideration of the material on record has
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
recorded a finding that PW.2 has not stated that as a result of
the injuries there is any functional disability to the claimant and
that the fractures having been united has not awarded any
amount towards loss of future income. The said finding of the
Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Having
regard to the evidence of PW.2, it is just and proper that the
disability of the claimant be assessed as 15%.
18. In view of the aforementioned, the quantum of
compensation is re-assessed as follows:
18.1 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `40,000/-
towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the fact that the
claimant has suffered three fractures as noticed above, the
compensation on the said head is re-assessed at `60,000/-.
18.2 The Tribunal has awarded `70,000/- towards
medical expenses which is just and proper.
18.3 A sum of `15,000/- has been awarded towards
conveyance, nourishment and other expenses. Having regard
to the nature of injuries sustained and the period of treatment,
it is just and proper that the compensation for the same
including attendant charges be re-assessed at `25,000/-.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
18.4 The Tribunal has awarded `20,000/- towards loss of
amenities. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the
period of treatment the said compensation is re-assessed as
`30,000/-.
18.5 The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
loss of income during period of treatment. Having regard to
the nature of injuries sustained, the period of treatment is
taken as three months. Hence, a compensation (`6,500/- x 3)
of `19,500/- which is rounded of to `20,000/- is awarded for
the same.
18.6 The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards loss of future income. In view of the discussion made
hereinabove, compensation towards the same is assessed as
(`6,500/- x 12 x 17 x 15%) `1,98,900/- which is rounded off
to `2,00,000/-.
18.7 The Tribunal has awarded a sum of `15,000/-
towards future medical expenses. However, there is no
material on record towards the same and awarded on the said
head is set aside.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
19. In view of the aforementioned question no.2 is
answered in the affirmative and the re-assessed
compensation is as follows:
Sl.No Compensation Head Amount Amount
Awarded by awarded by
the Tribunal this Court (`)
(`)
1 Pain and suffering 40000.00 60000.00
2 Medical expenses 70000.00 70000.00
3 Conveyance, 15000.00 25000.00
nourishment and other
expenses
4 Loss of amenities 20000.00 30000.00
5 Loss of income during 00 20000.00
laid up period
6 Future loss of income 00 200000.00
7 Future medical 15000.00 -15000.00
expenses
Total 160000 390000
20. Hence, the enhanced compensation of
(`3,90,000/- - `1,60,000/-) shall be payable to the claimant
together with interest at 6% p.a.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
MFA No. 8899 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 7220 of 2013
21. In view of the aforementioned, the following
order is passed:
ORDER
i) MFA No.8890/2013 filed by the Insurance
Company is dismissed.
ii) MFA No.7220/2013 filed by the claimant is
allowed in part;
iii) The judgment and award dated 05.06.2013
passed in MVC No.2118/2011 by the I Addl.
Small Cause Judge and XVII ACMM, MACT.,
Bengaluru, is hereby modified to the extent
stated herein. In all other respects, the
judgment and award of the Tribunal remains
unaltered;
iv) The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced
compensation in addition to the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of `2,30,000/-
together with interest at 6% from the date of
petition till its realization;
v) The enhanced compensation together with
accrued interest shall be deposited by the Insurer
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:1496
within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
vi) Upon such deposit, the entire enhanced
compensation together with interest accrued
thereupon is to be disbursed to the claimant.
vii) The Registry to draw the modified award
accordingly.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PNV/BS
