1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5843 OF 2012 (MV) BETWEEN:
SHASHI @ SHASHIDARA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O SRINAGAR EXTENSION BEHIND JAIL PREMISES HASSAN-573 201 … APPELLANT (BY SHRI. R. JEEVAN, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., B.M.ROAD, HASSAN-573 201 2. C.S.RAMESHA S/O SANNARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O CHANNAPATNA HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201 … RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. D.S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.02.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.1015/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
2 JUDGMENT Claimant before Fast Track Court – I & Additional MACT, Hassan, has challenged the judgment and award dated 17.02.2012 passed in MVC No.1015/2011 in this appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to the status before the learned Tribunal.
3. Shri R. Jeevan, learned advocate for the appellant submits that claimant has suffered four injuries and incurred Rs.25,000/- as medical expenses. Learned Tribunal without properly appreciating the material on record, awarded only a global compensation of Rs.12,000/.
4. So far as liability is concerned, he submits that the learned Tribunal has recorded that the driver of the offending vehicle did possess a licence but there was no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. He further submits that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental 3 Insurance Company Limited1, Insurer is liable to indemnify the owner.
5. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that except oral submission, no documentary evidence was placed before the learned Tribunal to prove the claimant incurred medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken so far as quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
6. This position of law is not disputed by the learned advocate for the Insurer.
7. Hence, the following:
ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part;
(ii) Insurer is held liable to pay the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and 1 AIR 2017 SC 3368 4 shall deposit the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and;
(iii) Respondent No.2 shall be entitled for refund of compensation amount, if he has already deposited before the Court.
Sd/- JUDGE AV