IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT BETWEEN:
SRI RAMAKRISHNA M.F.A.NO.994/2015 [MV] S/O LATE CHIKKAJAVARAIAH AGE 44 YEARS R/AT GANGENAHALLI KIKKERI HOBLI K.R PATE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI.HALESHA R G, ADV.) AND:
1. SRI JAVAREGOWDA S/O NINGEGOWDA MAJOR R/A NAGAROORU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, A BACHALLI POST K.R PATE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER TATA AIG GENERAL INS. CO.LTD., P.B. NO.9407, CHAKALA MIDC POST MUMBAI- 093 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL BRANCH THE BRANCH MANAGER TATA AIG GEN. INS., CO. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, JP & DEVI JAMBUKESHWARA ARCHAD ... APPELLANT NO.69, MILLORS ROAD BANGALORE CITY- 52. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A RAVISHANKAR, ADV. FOR R2 R1-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:03.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.118/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant/claimant is before this Court not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 03.07.2014 passed in MVC No.118/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Channarayapatna, and also saddling of liability on the respondent – owner.
2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 17.01.2011 when the claimant was a pedestrian along with his son near Yachenahalli gate, at that time, driver of Auto bearing Reg.No.KA-54-1155 came in a rash, negligent manner and dashed against the claimant from back side, which resulted in grievous injury. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Channarayapatna and subsequently to S.C. Hospital, Hassan, where he took treatment as inpatient for 2 days. It is stated that subsequently, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, and has undergone surgery. The claimant was an agriculturist and was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month.
3. On issuance of summons, the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its objection denying the petition averments. Further it is stated that the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and has been falsely implicated by lodging the delayed complaint. It is also stated that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 – the Doctor and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P.17. The respondent - insurer has examined RW.1 and 2 and got marked the documents Exs.R.1 to R.3. The Tribunal on analyzing the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.3,22,000/- taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs.6,000/- per month and saddling the liability on the respondent – owner on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant is before this Court in this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company. Perused the entire material on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the income assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. He submits that the claimant was an agriculturist and was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month. Further he submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing license to drive the light motor vehicle, which is evident from Ex.R.2 and R3. Thus he submits relying upon the decision in MUKUND DEWANGAN v/s ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 the insurer is liable to compensate the claimant.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent – Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation which needs no interference.
7. The accident is of the year 2011. The notional income taken at Rs.6,000/- per month is on the lower side. The claimant states that he was earning more than Rs.8,000/- per month by doing agricultural work. But no document is produced to show the exact income of the claimant. In the absence of any material to indicate the exact income, the income is to be determined notionally. This Court and Lok Adalath while settling the accidental claims of the year 2011 would normally take notional income of Rs.6,500/- per month. Hence, in the instant case, in the absence of any material to indicate the exact income of the claimant, the notional income is to be taken at Rs.6,500/- per month. Exs.R.2 and R.3 – the driving license extract and ‘B’ Register Extract would indicate that the driver had the licence to drive light motor vehicle without endorsement for driving the transport vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision in reported in MUKUND DEWANGAN v/s ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 held that a person possessing light motor vehicle license could drive the transport vehicle also. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in MUKUND DEWANGAN cited supra at paragraph 60 has held that the insurer would be liable to indemnify the owner and is liable to pay the compensation. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified and liability is saddled on the 2nd respondent Insurer. In view of the reassessment of the notional income, the claimant would be entitled for ‘Loss of future earning’ of Rs.1,75,500/- (Rs.6,5,00 x 12 x 15 x 15% = 1,75,500/).
The compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other heads are not disturbed. Thus the claimant shall be entitled for enhanced compensation as follows :-
e. Future medical expenses 25,000/-
f. Loss of amenities in life 10,000/-
Total Rs.3,38,000/-
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of a sum of Rs.3,38,000/- as against Rs.3,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
The insurer is liable to deposit the amount of compensation within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal Sd/- JUDGE NG*CT:bms