IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A. No.4214/2019 C/W M.F.A No.4215/2019 (MV) BETWEEN:
The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., NAG Nirmal Complex, Basavanahalli Main Road, Chikkamagaluru.
By Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, No.144, No.44/45, LEO Shopping Complex, Residency Cross Road, Bengaluru – 560 025.
By it’s Manager Appellant (Common) (By Sri. O.Mahesh, Advocate) AND:
In MFA No.4214/2019:
1. Shafi, Aged 41 years, S/o. Sab Jan Sab, R/o. Ballery Camp, Birur Town, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District – 577 101.
2. Umesh, Aged 42 years, S/o. Nagarajappa, R/at Gayathri Nagar, Tarikere – 577 101.
3. Jayanna, Aged 43 years, S/o. Venkateshappa, R/at Mchinahalli, Thudipete, Tarikere Town, Tarikere Taluk – 577 101.
4. Arif, Aged about 30 years, S/o. Abubekar, R/at Ballary Camp, Birur Town, Kadur Taluk – 577 101.
5. Rangappa, Aged 51 years, S/o. Hanumanthappa, R/o. Sidrakalhalli Village, Bhadravathi – 577 201.
6. Ahamed Jan, Major, S/o. Nannesab, R/o. Ward No.17, Thyagarajanagar, Kadur Town and Taluk – 577 101. Respondents In MFA No.4215/2012:
1. Arif, Aged about 30 years, S/o. Abubekar, R/o Ballery Camp, Birur Town, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District – 577 101.
2. Umesh, Aged 42 years, S/o. Nagarajappa, R/at Gayathri Nagar, Tarikere – 577 101.
3. Jayanna, Aged 43 years, S/o. Venkateshappa, R/at Mchinahalli, Thudipete, Tarikere Town, Tarikere Taluk – 577 101.
4. Rangappa, Aged 51 years, S/o. Hanumanthappa, R/o. Sidrakalhalli Village, Bhadravathi – 577 201.
5. Ahamed Jan, Major, S/o. Nannesab, R/o. Ward No.17, Thyagarajanagar, Kadur Town and Taluk – 577 101. Respondents These MFAs are filed U/S. 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, against the common judgment and award dated 01.01.2019 passed in MVC No.19/2013 and MVC No.18/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Member-MACT, Kadur, Chikkamagaluru District, awarding a compensation of Rs.25,000/- & Rs.91,954/- with interest at 7% p.a., respectively, from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
These MFAs coming on for Orders, this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and award passed in two claim petitions in MVC Nos.18/2013 and MVC No.19/2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & MACT at Kadur, Chikkamagaluru District, wherein the respective claim petitions came to be allowed in part, fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has filed these two appeals.
2. The details of road traffic accident is that, on 12.09.2010 at about 11.00 A.M. the petitioner and his friend were going on a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-14/J- 7368 on the left side of the road from Tarikeri to Lakkavalli slowly. At that time, near Seethapur Kavalu, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-12/3715 was driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle because of which the respective claimants in each of the case sustained injuries.
3. Insofar as MFA No.4214/2019 is concerned it is in respect of MVC No.19/2013 and insofar as MFA No.4215/2019 is concerned, it is in respect of MVC No.18/2013.
4. The injuries stated to have been sustained by the claimant in MFA No.4214/2019 is a lacerated wound over the right chin in middle. Since, the petitioner had not produced any certificate other than wound certificate, such as medical bills, discharge summary etc., to prove that he had spent any amount towards his treatment, petitioner was granted a global compensation of Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering.
5. It is stated that the claimant in MFA No.4215/2019 sustained injuries to hand, knee and thighs. The break up of compensation awarded is as follows:
1. Medical expenses Rs.20,754/-
2. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.1,200/-
3. Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/-
4. Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
5. Food, nourishment and attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.91,954/-
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance company would submit that there was no license and also owner of the vehicle was arrayed as respondent No.2, who denied his ownership and the Tribunal has erred in fastening entire liability on the Insurance Company.
7. In the overall circumstances, the root question would be whether policy was subsisting? It is not the demand of the insurer to find out whether ownership stays constantly or could be transferred from the original policy holder to another. The liability fastened on the Insurance company is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference. Even, I do not find that there can be any higher consideration of the compensation awarded, as the same is just and reasonable. In the circumstances, there is no necessity for further proceedings. Hence, appeals are rejected.
Amount in deposit in both the appeals is ordered to be transmitted to the claims Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE SV