Karnataka High Court
Sri B T Venkatesh vs Sri Jagadeesh Kumar on 24 August, 2012
Equivalent citations: 2013 (1) AKR 266
Bench: N.K.Patil, S.N.Satyanarayana
1
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA
M.F.A.No. 9582 OF 2007 (MV)
BETWEEN
1. SRI B .T. VENKATESH
S/O. THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
H.NO.53/3, III CROSS,
SREERAMANAGARA, TUMKUR.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI D.R.ANANDEESHWARA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SRI JAGADEESH KUMAR
S/O. BASAVARAJU, MAJOR
NO.10, II CROSS, GOPALAPURA, MYSORE ROAD
NEW TARAGAPET,
BANGALORE.
(R.C.OWNER OF AUTO-RICKSHAW
BEARING REG. NO.KA-05-A-6339)
2. SANDIL KUMAR S/O PALANIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
NO.12, 5TH MAIN, BHUVANESWARINAGARA
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 023,
(P.A HOLDER OF AUTO
BEARING REG. NO.KA-05-A-6339)
(DELETED ON 4.8.07)
2
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
H.200/3, LAKSHMI TOWERS
ADJACENT OF BANGALORE HOSPITAL
R V ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BANGALORE-560 004,
(POLICY NO.1999/12300
VALID UPTO 02.03.2000)
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R2-DELETED V/O DATED 04.08.07;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD.17.1.12)
*****
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:
8.3.2007 PASSED IN MVC NO. 887/99 ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST
TRACK COURT-I AND MACT, TUMKUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
:J U D G M E N T:
The claimant in MVC No. 887/1999 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tumkur, has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein and also seeking modification of the judgment, so far as, it pertains to fixing of liability to pay compensation on the 3rd respondent-insurance company.
3
2. The appellant, who is claimant before the Tribunal is rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.CKM 2388. It is stated that the said motorcycle met with an accident on Koratagere Mavathur Road near Kyamenahalli resulting in injuries to the claimant, of which, fracture of right tibia and fibula appears to be grievous and other injuries are simple in nature.
3. In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal claimant adduced evidence as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 13 documents in support of his case. On behalf of respondent, though no evidence is adduced, policy copy was produced and marked. The tribunal on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to allow the claim petition partially and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,77,600/- payable with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date petition to till its realisation fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-05-A-6339.
4
4. So far as the 3rd respondent-insurance company before the Tribunal is concerned, it is exonerated from paying the compensation on the ground that there is violation of the policy conditions in taking the vehicle outside the Town Municipal Limits within which the autorickshaw was authorised to be used. Unfortunately the accident has taken place beyond the Town Municipal limits within which the owner of the offending autorickshaw was required to ply the same. The claimant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as well as finding of the Tribunal in exonerating the 3rd respondent-insurance company to satisfy the award has come in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. On re-appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record, in the light of the findings of the judgment impugned it is clearly seen that the accident has taken place in the year 1999, the nature of injuries sustained 5 though appears 7 in number, except the fracture to right tibia, fibula and right thigh rest of the injuries are in the nature of abrasion on different parts of the body. In that view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads namely, for simple injuries; for grievous injuries; pain and sufferings; medical expenses, future medical expenses, loss of future income, transportation and future unhappiness and loss of income appears to be just and proper and therefore there is no scope for enhancement under any of the heads.
6. So far as fastening the liability on insurance company is concerned, the findings of the Tribunal is clear that, there is violation of the policy conditions by the owner and driver of the offending autorickshaw which is insured with the 3rd respondent-insurance company. In the light of the policy conditions being violated, the question of fastening the liability on the insurance company to indemnify the liability of paying compensation does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the findings of the Tribunal in restricting 6 the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of the offending autorickshaw appears to be just and proper and same does not call for any interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant fails on both the grounds and it is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*