Karnataka High Court
Sri Raghavendra S vs Munesh on 13 June, 2022
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MFA.NO.8825/2015(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHAVENDRA .S
S/O SANJEEV RAO
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
NO.113, ATTUR LAYOUT
MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURESH .M., ADVOCATE(VC))
AND:
1. MUNESH
NO.455, SHARADAMBA NAGAR
JALAHALLI 1ST CROSS
1ST MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU DISTRICT
BENGALURU-560 013
2. THE MANAGER
THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.112, 1ST FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD
NEAR CANARA BANK
GEDDALAHALLI
BANGALORE-560 094
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 -NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED
01.07.2021, SRI. S. KRISHNA KISHORE, ADVOCATE
FOR R2)
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED:27.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1894/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL JUDGE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MEMBER, MAYO HALL
UNIT,MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for brevity) by the appellant-claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 27.06.2015, passed in MVC No.1894/2011, on the file of MACT and V Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore City, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity) seeking enhancement.
Brief facts:
2. On 18.10.2009 at about 8.45 p.m., the appellant after visiting his friend's house, at 5th 'C' Cross, Sharadamba Nagar, along with his friends was standing on the footpath, at that time a Honda Dio 3 vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04/EV-0371 dashed against the appellant, due to rash and negligent riding by its rider. As a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries.
3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the appellant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.70,000/-, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of its realization. The Tribunal held that respondent No.1 is solely liable to pay the compensation.
4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 - insurance company and perused the materials on record.4
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is on lesser side. Therefore, seeks for enhancement of the compensation.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent - insurance company submits that the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned judgment and award and there is no ground for enhancement and that the compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient and adequate.
7. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as follows:
Pain and Suffering : Rs. 20,000/-
Nourishment Food, attendant : Rs. 5,000/-
charges
Conveyance : Rs. 1,000/-
Medical Expenses : Rs. 39,000/-
Loss of amenities life : Rs. 5,000/-
TOTAL : Rs. 70,000/-
5
8. The Tribunal had fixed the liability on the respondent No.1-owner by absolving responsibility on the 2nd respondent-insurance company on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license. Therefore, even though it is admitted fact that the insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident, but on the ground that there was no valid and effective driving license on the part of the driver of the vehicle the liability was fixed on the respondent No.1-owner.
9. The Tribunal has given the finding on this aspect that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license. Hence, it is ordered that the respondent No.2-insurance company is not liable to indemnify and fastened liability on the respondent No.1-owner. Therefore the finding of the fact is that as on the date of the accident the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license. In this regard respondent No.2 has taken defence as 6 available under Section 149(2) of the Act. Therefore, it is incumbent on the respondent-insurance company to satisfy the claim amount at first instance and then recover from the owner of the vehicle who is respondent No.1 as per Section 149(2) of the Act.
10. In this regard, I place reliance on the full bench decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Bijapur by its Divisional Manager Vs. Yallavva and Another reported in 2020 ACJ 2560 and in the case of Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208.
11. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down as stated supra even though the 2nd respondent-
insurance company absolutely is not liable to pay compensation but respondent No.2 has to satisfy the compensation amount and then recover the same from respondent No.1-owner by following due procedure of law as per the principles laid down in the 7 case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Chella Bharathamma & Others reported in AIR 2004 SCC 4882. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part.
12. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The 2nd respondent herein is directed to satisfy the compensation amount to the appellant and then recover from the respondent No.1-owner as per the principles laid down in the case of Chella Bharathamma & others stated supra.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2015 for condonation of delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NS