IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.6262/2014 c/w M.F.A.No.9869/2012 [MV] IN M.F.A.No.6262/2014:
BETWEEN :
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TUMKUR BRANCH, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, No.144, SUBHARAMA COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV.) AND :
1. SRI G.S.BASAVARAJU S/O SRI CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT GANADAL VILLAGE, HULIYUR HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572214 2. SRI H.CHANDRAIAH, S/O SRI HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHALLI PALYA VILLAGE, HULIYUR HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALIK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572214 (OWNER OF THE T/T UNIT No.KA-44-T-2012-2013) …RESPONDENTS (R-1 SERVED UNREPRESENTED;
R-2 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2017.) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.1400/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, CHIKKANAYAKAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.44,500/- WITH INTEREST @6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
IN M.F.A.No.9869/2012:
BETWEEN :
SRI G.S.BASAVARAJU S/O CHANNABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT GANADAL VILLAGE, HULIYUR HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT ...APPELLANT (BY SRI M.V.MAHESHWARAPPA, ADV.) AND :
1. SRI H.CHANDRAIAH, S/O HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT HOSAHALLI PALYA VILLAGE, HULIYUR HOBLI, C.N.HALLI TALIK, TUMKUR DISTRICT (OWNER OF THE T/T UNIT No.KA-44-5-2012-1013) 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUDDAPPA COMPLEX, SIRANI ROAD, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT (POLICY No.603903/31/07/6300003769 VALID FROM 15.12.2007 TO 14.12.2008) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JANARDHAN REDDY, ADV. FOR R-2;
R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.03.2014.) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.03.2012 PASSED IN MVC No.1400/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ININERATE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKIG ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The insurer as well as the claimant are before this Court assailing the judgment and award dated 8.3.2012 passed in MVC No.1400/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by him. It is stated that on 9.8.2008 at about 7.45 p.m. while the claimant was proceeding on his motor bike bearing Registration No.KA 44 H 610, a Tractor and Trailer bearing No.KA 44 T 2012- 2013 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor bike due to which the claimant suffered grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Primary Health Centre, thereafter to Victoria Hospital and Government Dental College, Bangalore. It is stated that the claimant was doing agricultural work and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
3. On service of notice, the respondent-insurance company appeared and filed its objections denying the claim averments. It has also denied the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Further, it contended that the rider of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident.
4. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and examined the Doctor PW-2 apart from marking documents Ex.P1 to P13. The respondent-insurance company has not led any evidence.
5. The Tribunal on analyzing the material placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs.44,500/- on the following heads along with interest at 6% p.a.
Towards pain and agony Rs.30,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 5,000 Towards extra nourishment Rs. 2,000 Towards Travelling Charges Rs. 3,000 Towards loss of income during treatment Rs. 4,500 Total Rs.44,500 6. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation is before this Court in MFA No.9869/12. The insurance company is before this Court in MFA No.6262/14 challenging the saddling of the liability on it.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.
8. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that the Doctor has stated 15% facial disability, but the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the disability suffered for awarding compensation. He submits that the claimant was an inpatient for 15 days for the treatment due to the injuries suffered. Looking to the injuries and the treatment taken, the compensation awarded on various heads are on the lower side.
9. Learned counsel for the insurer submits that the insurance company had taken a specific contention that the rider of the offending vehicle had no driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Therefore, saddling the liability on the insurer is not correct. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company.
10. The insurance company in its appeal has contended that the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tractor and Trailer had no licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. The accident had taken place on 9.8.2008 between motor bike No.KA 44 H 610 and Tractor and Trailer bearing No.KA 44 T 2012-2013. The insurance company in its objection had taken a contention that the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.KA 44 T 2012-2013 had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. But the insurance company has not led any evidence nor produced any evidence. In the absence of any evidence in support of its contention, the Tribunal had no option but to reject the contention of the insurer. Charge sheet is filed against the driver of the Tractor and Trailer. Thus, the contention of the insurer is rejected and the appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No.6262/2014 is dismissed.
11. The claimant has sought for enhancement of compensation. It is his submission that even though the Doctor has opined that the claimant has suffered 15% facial disability, the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation. The claimant states that he was doing agricultural work. The injury suffered and the disability attributed would not come in the way of the claimant’s day-to-day agricultural work. Thus, the Tribunal has concluded that the claimant has not suffered any functional disability. Moreover, the claimant has not produced any document i.e., discharge summary of Victoria Hospital and Government Dental College, where he had taken initial treatment for 15 days. Ex.P4 wound certificate would indicate that the claimant suffered facial injuries and the treatment taken by the claimant for more than 15 days as an inpatient at Government Dental College entitles for partial enhancement of compensation on other heads. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation.
Towards pain and agony Rs.30,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 5,000 Towards extra nourishment Rs.10,000 Towards Travelling Charges Rs. 5,000 Towards loss of income during treatment Rs. 4,500 Towards loss of amenities Rs.20,000 Total Rs.74,500 12. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.74,500/- as against Rs.44,500/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
M.F.A.No.9869/2012 is allowed in part. The judgment and award is modified to the above extent. The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.
M.F.A.No.6262/2014 filed by the insurance company is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: