IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO BETWEEN:
SMT.ROOPA M.F.A.No.9032/2015 (MV) W/O S.U CHENNAKESHAVA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O HEBBANDI VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201.
(BY SRI M V MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. NAGESH M S/O MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O OLD SAGAR ROAD HOSANAGARA SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201.
2. PARVACHAR S/O UMAPATHI ACHAR AGE MAJOR R/O S.N.ROAD HOSANAGAR SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 201.
*3. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD B H ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA DIST – 577 201.
…APPELLANT ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A N KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 *Inserted as per court order dated 18.03.2019.
R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:1.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC No.143/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC & ADDDITIONAL MACT-12, BHADRAVATHI, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The proceeding before this court has been taken up for the second time as in the previous lis, the matter came up before the court in MFA No.9470/2011 preferred by one Roopa, claimant against the judgment and award dated 20.6.2011 passed in MVC No.143/2008 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC and Additional MACT 12, Bhadravathi, wherein claim petition was allowed and 2nd respondent, owner of the tempo trax was saddled with the liability of paying the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- together with the interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.
2. As the liability was saddled on 2nd respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle tempo trax bearing Registration No.KA.15.M.1626, petitioner’s contention and grounds in substance is that the liability was saddled on the owner of the offending vehicle and urged that the liability being saddled on the owner be dislodged and to be saddled on the insurance company, 3rd respondent before the Tribunal as she claim the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, B.H.Road, Shimoga.
3. Basically, the matter pertains to a road traffic accident dated 14.5.2008 at 1.30 p.m. near Baranduru cross, when the petitioner and her husband were moving in a motor cycle, 1st respondent being the driver of tempo trax bearing Registration No.KA.15.M.1626 came from bilaki cross side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle on which the petitioner was traveling as a pillion rider. Because of which she suffered injuries and she was taken to KMC hospital, Manipal. She had to undergo surgery and implants were installed to the fractured bone. She claim Rs.70,000/- for medical expenditure of Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses. She claim to be a Post Graduate, working at Gandhi Krishi Vijnana Kendra, Bengaluru drawing a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month.
4. The insurance company entered appearance and matter was considered with reference to the materials and the evidence available before the Tribunal and award was passed as stated above.
5. This court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for the limited purpose. It is after the remand, during the second occasion, matter came to be adjudicated by the Tribunal under the same MVC No. 143/2008 on 1.10.2015. Again 2nd respondent was ordered to pay the compensation of Rs.3,50,000 along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment.
6. It is against saddling of liability on the 2nd respondent, owner of the offending vehicle, the same Roopa, petitioner has preferred this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that saddling of liability on the owner would cause too much hardship and there will not be a chance of recovery and hence, he seeks liability to be saddled on the insurance company.
8. On the earlier occasion, it is seen that considering the insurance in respect of the vehicle being in force under the a valid policy and as the vehicle was a transport vehicle, driver possessed driving licence to drive light motor vehicle but was not authorized the driver to drive transport vehicle and held that that was a clear violation of the terms of the policy. Hence though the claim petition was partly allowed and compensation amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was granted fastening liability on the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle.
9. In the circumstances, in obedience to the legal position that nature of driving licence be a transport or non transport vehicle or without endorsement to be considered in the matters of liability, I hold that the learned member erred in saddling liability on the owner and thereby exonerating the liability of the insurance company. Thus, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be modified.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it has been already adjudicated and the compensation awarded is found to be just and fair.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.
The Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its payment within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment and to that extent impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified.
tsn* Sd/- JUDGE