Karnataka High Court
Vasu @ Vasudeva Shetti vs Manjunath.C on 23 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42687
MFA No. 3525 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3525 OF 2022(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
VASU @ VASUDEVA SHETTI,
S/O. ANANDA SETTI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT RAGIGUDDA,
MALLIKARJUNA NAGARA,
2ND CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK,
ALSO R/AT NO.10, HONNALI ROAD,
KSFIC, GOVT, QUARTERS SHANTINAGARA,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. MANJUNATH C.,
AASEEFA PARVEEN S/O CHANNAPPA
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
COURT OF R/O GONDHICHATNAHALLI VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
OPP: MARUTHI RICE MILL,
NEW EXTENSION,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 201.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MALLPPA COMPLES,
B.H.ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42687
MFA No. 3525 of 2022
THIS MFA FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.02.2022 PASSED IN
MVC NO.540/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM ADDITIONAL MACT-VII, SHIVAMOGGA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.M.V. Maheshwarapa, who appears physically
before this Court and represents the appellant. Also heard
Sri.Shivaraj Patil, learned counsel who appears through video
conference and represents respondent No.2.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-VII,
Shivamogga in MVC No.540/2019 dated 28.02.2022. This is a
claimant's appeal.
3. Sri.M.V.Mahewarappa, learned counsel for appellant
arguing on merits of the matter submits that the appeal is filed
NC: 2024:KHC:42687
on two grounds. Firstly, that the Tribunal erred in exonerating
respondent No.2 from paying compensation. Secondly, that
compensation granted is grossly low.
4. Arguing on the first point Sri.M.V.Maheshwarappa,
learned counsel for appellant contends that the appellant is a
3rd party to Ex.R1 insurance policy. On the ground that the rider
of the offending motor bike was not holding valid Driving
Licence, the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from
liability. However, as the appellant has nothing to do with the
owner following terms and conditions of policy, the Tribunal
ought to have fastened the liability against the insurance
company as well.
5. The submission that is made by Sri.Shivaraj Patil,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 in this regard is that as
there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the
Tribunal ordered the owner of the offending vehicle alone to
pay compensation, however, an order of pay and recovery can
be passed.
6. It is not dispute that the rider of the motor cycle
which is involved in the accident was not holding valid and
NC: 2024:KHC:42687
effective driving licence. However, as the policy stood in force,
this Court is of the view that respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company is liable to satisfy the award and thereafter to recover
the amount paid from the owner of the offending vehicle by
initiating appropriate proceedings.
7. Coming to the quantum of amount that is awarded
as compensation, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as
global compensation under all other heads except medical
expenditure and granted a sum of Rs.87,380/- towards medical
expenditure, totally Rs.1,27,380/-. However, as rightly pointed
out by Sri.M.V.Maheshwarappa, learned counsel for appellant,
the appellant succeeded in establishing that he sustained
grievous injury to the left parietal region apart from other
simple injuries and took treatment as inpatient for a period of
nine days.
8. Having considered these aspects, this Court is of
the view that, awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation
under all heads including pain and suffering, towards
conveyance, extra nourishment, attendant charges, loss of
income during laid up period is unjustifiable. Thus, having
considered the totality of evidence produced, this Court is of
NC: 2024:KHC:42687
the view that the compensation in toto is liable to be enhanced
by Rs.50,000/-. Thus, in the light of the foregoing discussion
the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The compensation that is awarded by the Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - VII, Shivamogga
through orders in MVC No.540/2019 dated 28.2.2022 is
enhanced from Rs.1,27,380/- to Rs.1,77,380/-.
iii) The enhanced sum shall carry interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
deposit.
iv) The second respondent is directed to deposit the
entire sum within a period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
v) On such deposit, the second respondent is permitted
to recover the same from respondent No.1 by initiating
appropriate proceeding.
NC: 2024:KHC:42687
vi) On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
