IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. SREENIVASE GOWDA M.F.A. NO.1001/2016 (MVC) BETWEEN;
MR. LAKSMANAGOWDA @ NAVEEN, S/O. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O. M. MELLAHALLI VILLAGE, BINDIGANAVILE HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 432.
... APPELLANT (By SRI. K. T. GURUDEVA PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. C. N. MANJESHA, MAJOR, S/O. SRI. NANJUNDEGOWDA, R/O. ANE CHANNAPURA VILLAGE, BINDIGNAVILE HOBLI, NAGMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTICT-571 432.
2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MC ROAD, MANDYA-571 401, BY ITS MANAGER. ... RESPONDENTS (By SRI. K SRIDHAR, ADV. FOR R.2, R.1 - SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.1396/14 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, NAGAMANGALA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T The claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal regarding quantum of compensation as well as on liability has preferred this appeal.
2. Heard Sri. K. T. Gurudev Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri. K. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/insurer.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that accident had occurred within one month from the date of expiry of the fitness certificate of the vehicle as such, the insurance company cannot absolve from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimant. In support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rangappa @ Rangappa Shetty vs Jayaramaiah and another reported in ILR 2014 KAR 191. He submits, quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal by modifying the judgment and of the Tribunal both on liability as well as quantum.
4. Smt. Sujatha, for Sri. K. Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that admittedly vehicle had no fitness certificate as on the date of the accident and it expired three months prior to the accident. As such, the insurer of the vehicle is not liable to answer the claim of the claimant. Regarding quantum of compensation, she submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. As there is no dispute regarding certain injuries sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident occurred on 28.05.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi Car bearing registration No.KA-03-P-9708 by its driver, points that arise for my consideration in the appeal are:
i) Whether the compensation of Rs.90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or does it call for enhancement?
ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle instead of fastening it on the insurer?
6. Claimant had sustained the following injuries:-
1) Lacerated wound of 1 ¾” x ½” x scalp depth over the left upper part of the occipital region.
2) Bleeding in the left ear.
3) Abrasion of ½” x ½” over the left foot.
7. Nature of injuries sustained and duration of treatment undergone by the claimant are supported by the oral evidence of claimant examined as PW.12 and supported by wound certificate-Ex.P5 and discharge letter-Ex.P8. Doctor is not examined regarding disability and that the compensation of Rs.40,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities, future unhappiness and discomforts, Rs.17,250/- towards medical expenses, Rs.8,000/- towards loss of income during treatment and laid up period and Rs.4,750/- towards attendant charges and conveyance and miscellaneous expenses found to be just and reasonable and there is no scope for enhancement. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
8. According to the claimant, accident had occurred within one month from the date of expiry of the fitness certificate. Whereas, according to the insurer accident had occurred within three months from the date of expiry of fitness certificate. The fact remains that vehicle did not have the fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. The question would be whether the insurer is absolved from its liability on the ground that vehicle did not have fitness certificate as on the date of accident. This Court in the case of Rangappa @ Rangappa Shetty vs Jayaramaiah and another reported in ILR 2014 KAR 191 referred by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant had held that non-possessing of fitness certificate of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident is not a ground for the insurer to avoid liability or absolved from the liability. The instant case is fairly covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court and therefore finding of the Tribunal on liability is to be modified and it has to be held that the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
9. Hence, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award dated 31.10.2015 in MVC No.1396/2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Nagamangala, stands modified insofar as its finding on the liability is concerned. It is held that insurer is liable to pay compensation awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Claimant is permitted to withdraw the same in terms of the award of the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
PMR SD/- JUDGE