IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD MFA No.6912/2011 (MV) BETWEEN:
SRI SOMEGOWDA ALIAS SWAMYGOWDA S/O RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NEGATHUR VILLAGE HANGODU HOBLI-571130 HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.VISHWANATH.A., ADV. FOR SRI. B S NAGARAJ., ADV.) AND 1. S KUMAR S/O KORE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT BILIKERE VILLAGE & HOBLI HUNSUR TALUK-571 105, MYSORE DISTRICT 2. MAQBOOI UNISSA D/O DAWOOD SHARIF AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 3. USMAN SHERIFF S/O DAWOOD SHARIF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 149, KHAZI MOHALLA HUNSUR TOWN-571 105 MYSORE DISTRICT 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER NO.1, BALLALA CIRCLE MYSORE-570 002.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S SRISHAILA, ADV. FOR R4, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH.) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:23.12.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.109/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, HUNSUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND PRAYING TO FIX THE LIABILITY ON RESPONDENT 3 INSURANCE COMPANY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and award dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hunsur in MVC 109/2009.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 7.2.2006, when the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle from Hunsur to Agrahara Village as a pillion order near Maris Factory, at that time, the driver of the tempo bearing Registration No.KA-09-A- 0984 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he sustained injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital. After recovering from injuries, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW- 1, and Dr. Kiran Kalash, as PW-2, and submitted 73 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance Company has not examined any witnesses but produced 2 documents. After appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV). In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 14 SCC 663], licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) includes licence to drive a transport vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. But the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle.
He further contends that the claimant is an agriculturist and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The claimant has suffered grievous injures and doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered disability to the right leg to an extent of 36%. But the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head “loss of future income”. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was possessing the driving licence to drive Non-transport vehicle. Whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was a goods vehicle. The Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle and has granted just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the records.
6. It is not in dispute that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 7.2.2006 due to involvement of vehicle in question. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (stated supra) has held that a holder of a driving licence to drive class of light motor vehicle is competent to drive a transport vehicle.
7. In the instant case, the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing driving licence to drive Non-transport (LMV) and hence, the driver had valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, this Court holds that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
8. Even though the claimant has sustained fracture of both leg bones and lacerated wound on right leg, the Tribunal has not granted any compensation under the head “loss of future income”. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the said head.
The claimant claims that he was doing agricultural work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But the same is not established by producing any documents. In catena of cases, this Court has relied upon the chart prepared by this Court for the purpose of deciding the matters at Lok Adalath. According to the chart, for an accident of the year, 2006, the income should be taken notionally as Rs.4,000/- per month. Therefore, the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.4,000/- per month.
The claimant is aged about 48 years at the time of accident, and the multiplier applicable to his age group is 13. His income is assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month. As per the evidence of PW-2, doctor, the disability caused to right leg is 36%. Hence, the disability caused to whole body is taken at 12% (one- third of 36%). Therefore, the ‘loss of future income’ works out to Rs.74,880/- (4000 x 12 x 13 x 12%) and it is awarded.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Hunsur in MVC 109/2009, stands modified. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.74,880/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, in addition to compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
10. It is made clear that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (stated supra), the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit, with the learned Tribunal, the entire compensation amount, along with an interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. The amount so deposited shall be released forthwith to the appellant by the learned Tribunal after verifying his identity.
Sd/- JUDGE DM