Karnataka High Court
Krishnamurthy C vs The Branch Manager on 3 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
MFA No. 4645 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 949 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4645 OF 2023(MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 949 OF 2023 (MV-I)
IN MFA No. 4645/2023
BETWEEN:
KRISHNAMURTHY C.,
S/O CHIKKARANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/O PILALLI VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
NOW R/O
C/O. CHIDANANDA C.,
Digitally S/O CHIKKRANGAPPA,
signed by VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION,
YAMUNA K L
CHITRADURGA TOWN AND DISTRICT 577 501.
Location:
High Court of ...APPELLANT
Karnataka (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
CHITRADURGA TOWN 577 501.
2. G.N. THIPPESWAMY
S/O O. NAGENDRAIAH,
MAJOR IN AGE,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
MFA No. 4645 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 949 of 2023
R/O SRI. LAKSHMI NARASHIMAHA
SWAMY MOTOR SERVICE,
VINAYAKA EXTENSION,
HOSADURGA TOWN
AND DISTRICT 577 527.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
V/O DATED:22.01.2021, NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2022 PASSED IN MVC
NO.642/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE OF
1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT NO.IV,
CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 949/2023
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE,
SHARADA COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND,
CHITRADURGA TOWN
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
A.M. ARCADE,
C.G. HOSPITAL ROAD,
NEAR VIDYARTHI BHAVAN,
DAVANAGERE-577 002.
...APPELLANT
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
MFA No. 4645 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 949 of 2023
(BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KRISHNAMURTHY C.,
S/O CHIKKARANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HEALTH INSPECTOR,
R/O PILALLI VILLAGE,
HIRIYUR TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT
C/O CHIDANANDA C,
S/O CHIKKARANGAPPA,
VIJAYANAGARA EXTENSION,
CHITRADURGA TOWN-577 501.
2. G.N. THIPPESWAMY
S/O O. NAGENDRAIAH,
OWNER OF BUS BEARING
REG.NO. KA-16-C-788,
R/O SRI. LAKSHMI NARASIMAHA
SWAMY MOTOR SERVICE,
VINAYAKA EXTENSION,
HOSADURGA TOWN-577 527.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. VASU K., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2022 PASSED
IN MVC NO.642/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, HOLDING CONCURRENT CHARGE
OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT.NO.IV,
CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,45,172/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
MFA No. 4645 of 2023
C/W MFA No. 949 of 2023
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Vijay Kumar.T, learned counsel who is
appearing for the appellant in MFA No.4645/2023 who also
represents Sri.Vasu.K, learned counsel on record for the
same party who is arrayed as respondent No.1 in MFA
No.949/2023. Also heard Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah,
learned counsel who is representing the appellant in MFA
No.949/2023 who is also arrayed as respondent No.1 in
the connected appeal i.e., MFA No.4645/2023.
2. Both these appeals arise out of the order that is
rendered by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, No.IV, Chitradurga in M.V.C. No.642/2020 dated
19.04.2022.
3. For the sake of convenience of discussion the
contesting parties to the proceedings would be hereinafter
be referred to as the 'claimant' and 'insurance company'.
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
4. While the insurance company filed an appeal
disputing its liability to pay compensation on the ground
that the claimant was at fault and the negligence lies on
his part, the claimant filed an appeal seeking enhancement
of compensation.
5. The manner of happening of accident as per the
version of the claimant is that on 04.11.2019 he was
proceeding on a motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-06-EK-3261 towards Doddachelluru Village. He was
riding the motor cycle in a moderate speed on the left side
of the road by observing traffic rules. At that time, a bus
bearing registration No.KA-16-C-7088 was moving ahead
of him. The driver of the bus suddenly applied the break,
stopped the bus and thereafter without giving any signal
took the bus in the reverse direction. The claimant could
not control his vehicle and thereby dashed to the hind side
of the bus and sustained injuries.
6. Arguing the matter, Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah,
learned counsel representing the insurance company
contends that the claimant was not possessing driving
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
license to drive the motorcycle by the date of accident.
The claimant who examined himself as PW-1 admitted
during the course of cross-examination that he was not
possessing driving license to drive the motorcycle. Thus,
the whole negligence lies on part of the claimant only. But,
the tribunal without considering the said fact, fastened the
liability upon the insurance company. As the claimant was
riding the motorcycle without having license, the insurance
company is not liable to pay any compensation.
7. Contradicting the said submission, Sri.Vijay
Kumar.T submits that the insurance company has insured
the bus, which is involved in the accident. The driver of
the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner,
stopped the bus suddenly and tried to take the bus in the
reverse direction, due to which, the claimant who was
riding the motorcycle behind the bus hit the bus and thus
the accident occurred. Learned counsel also states that
charge sheet was filed after due investigation with an
observation that the driver of the bus was at fault.
Therefore, the tribunal has rightly fastened the liability
against the insurance company which insured the bus and
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
thus, the appeal of the insurance company is not
maintainable.
8. It is not in dispute that Ex.P-7-charge sheet was
laid against the driver of the bus, holding that due to his
negligence the accident occurred. No doubt, the owner of
the motorcycle was also charge sheeted as he authorized
the claimant to drive the motorcycle and that the claimant
had no valid and effective driving license to drive the said
vehicle as on the date of accident and also that the
motorcycle was not insured.
9. However, there is no material on record to show
that the claimant has contributed for the accident to occur.
No evidence, whatsoever, is produced to show that lack of
driving skills on his part resulted in the accident to occur.
Learned counsel Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah failed to bring
to the notice of this Court any material to show that there
was negligence on the part of the claimant in riding the
motorcycle which is involved in the accident. On the
otherhand, by all the evidence produced, the claimant
established that due to the negligence on part of the driver
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
of the bus the accident occurred. Therefore, this Court is
of the view that the insurance company cannot be
exonerated from the liability as prayed for.
10. Coming to amount that is awarded as
compensation, the tribunal through the impugned order
awarded a sum of Rs.3,45,172/- as compensation divided
under following heads:-
Heads Amount in Rs.
Medical bills 2,45,172-00
Pain and suffering 40,000-00
Food and nourishment 20,000-00
Loss of amenities 10,000-00
Attendant charges 10,000-00
For future medical expenses 20,000-00
Total 3,45,172-00
11. Learned counsel Sri.Vijay Kumar.T submits that
the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries in the
accident and thus the compensation awarded is
unjustifiable. Learned counsel Sri.H.C.Vrushabhendraiah,
representing the insurance company submits that the
claimant has not produced any evidence to establish the
nature of injures he sustained and the treatment he has
taken.
NC: 2024:KHC:35972
12. Admittedly, except examining himself as PW-1,
the claimant did not choose to examine either the doctor
who treated him or any medical expert who expressed
opinion about the nature of injuries that were sustained by
the claimant.
13. In the absence of any proof, with regard to the
alleged disability, this Court is of the view that the
compensation awarded by the tribunal is highly justifiable.
Thus with the foregoing observations, these appeals are
disposed of with the following:-
ORDER
Both the appeals stand dismissed without costs.
Amount if any, in deposit, be transmitted to the
concerned tribunal immediately.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
