IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.9083/2012(MV) BETWEEN:
MANJEGOWDA S/O MAYANNAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SAVANTHANAHALLY VILLAGE KOUSHIKA POST, SHANTHIGRAMA POST HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT – 573 201.
(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGER ... APPELLANT BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO., BRANCH OFFICE, B.M.ROAD’ BESIDE KRISHNA HOTEL HASSAN – 573 201.
2. SANNEGOWDA S/O BETTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS KOUSHIKA VILLAGE AND POST SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT- 573 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 – SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:2.07.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.2087/2008 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 02.07.2012 passed in MVC No.2087/2008 by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan, wherein liability to compensate is fastened on the owner and dismissing the claim against the Insurance Company and the appellant for fastening the liability on Insurance Company and enhancement of compensation.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, parties hereinafter are referred to with reference to their respective rankings as stood in the Tribunal.
4. The proceedings are initiated because of the incident said to have been taken place dated 06.06.2008 when the petitioner was returning to his house by the side of road at about 7.00 p.m., when he came near the land of Vishalamma on Hassan- Marukuli road, a tractor trailer bearing Registration No. KA.13.A.4002 and 4003 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, due to which, he sustained injuries and underwent medical treatment, claiming compensation of `6,00,000/- from the respondents being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
5. Respondent No.2 denied the claim of the petitioner including the accident, negligence and driver holding the valid driving licence and its liability.
6. The Tribunal considered the matter with reference to accident, injuries, negligence and entitlement of compensation and allowed the claim petition in part, granting total compensation of `1,51,800/- to the petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of realization and petition came to be dismissed against respondent No.2-Insurance Company saddling the liability on the owner of tractor trailor.
7. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Tribunal ought to have saddled the liability to compensate on the insurance company and that the compensation awarded is on the lower side.
8. The learned counsel for Insurance Company would submit that there is no right of compensation to a person holding licence for non transport vehicle to use it or to get the benefit out of the accident wherein the offending vehicle is a non transport vehicle.
9. The nature of the vehicle or the licence of its deriver will not get changed when nature of use is changed. It is to be noted that, the tractor with its accessories cannot be termed as an exclusively transport vehicle or a means of conveyance. On the other hand, it is meant for agriculture and incidental works connected to it.
10. In this connection, it is necessary to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO.5826/2011 – MUKUND DEWANGAN VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – TRANSPORT VEHICLE, wherein, the contentions regarding transport and non transport vehicle and the liability of the Insurance Company are adjudicated leaving no doubt or confusion. Thus the nature of licence whether transport or otherwise matters little.
11. In the accident, claimant has sustained injuries as per Ex.P6-Wound certificate is as under:
(i) Lacerated wound over head;
(ii) CT Scan shows right temporal extra bone.
neurol lumotma; and (iii) fracture of sqamous temporal 12. Considering the nature of injuries and the percentage of disability suffered by the claimant, compensation awarded towards ‘loss of amenities’ deserves to be increased by `10,000/- and `10,000/- is to be awarded towards ‘future medical expenses’. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other counts deserve to be maintained. Thus the main contention between the parties is only regarding the nature of licence and the necessity of endorsement.
13. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a modified compensation as under:
Pain and suffering ` 30,000/-
Medical expenses ` 07,800/-
Loss of earning on account of disability ` 78,000/-
Loss of amenities in life ` 30,000/-
Future medical expenditure ` 10,000/-
For conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment ` 06,000/-
Loss of earning during laid up period ` 10,000/- Total `1,71,800/-
14. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore cited decision, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
15. Hence, the following:
ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Judgment and award dated 02.07.2012 passed in MVC No.2087/2008 by Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hassan, granting compensation of `1,51,800/- is proportionately set aside for modifying the same by granting compensation of `1,71,800/- (`20,000/- enhancement) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
(iii) Insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount of `1,71,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iv) Office is directed to transmit the deposit if any to the Tribunal.
(v) No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE tsn*