Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director, vs Shri.Devendra @ Devappa on 13 June, 2018
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13 T H DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
M.F.A. No.101486/2017 C/W
M.F.A.CROB.No.100016/2018 (MV)
IN MFA NO 101486 OF 2017
BETWEEN
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VRL LOGISTICS LTD.,
GIRIRAJ ANNEX,
CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD,
HUBBALLI. (ADMN.OFFICE N.H.4,
BENGALURU ROAD, VARUR, HUBBALLI)
..... APPELLANT
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV.)
AND
1. SHRI.DEVENDRA @ DEVAPPA
S/O GOLLALAPPA WALIKAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS,
OCC: CLAIMING TO BE A
AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE,
R/O: OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.-580029
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.-580029
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK T KATTIMANI, ADV. FOR R1
2
SRI R.R. MANE, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
28.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.884/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,92,712/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.
IN MFA.CROB N O 100016 OF 2018
BETWEEN
SHRI. DEVENDRA @ DEVAPPA WALIKAR
AGE:24 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE AND COOLIE,
R/O:OLD HUBBALLI, TQ:HUBBALLI,
DIST:DHARWAD.
..... CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI ASHOK T KATTIMANI, ADV.)
AND
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
VRL LOGISTIC LTD
REGN. AND ADMN. OFFICE NH-4,
BANGALORE (BENGALURU) ROAD,
VARUR, HUBBALLI
(OWNER OF VEHICLE NO:KA-25/C-9731)
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURENCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI,
POLICY NO:67070031120100001570
..... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI R.R. MANE, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS MFA.CROB IS FILED IN MFA NO.101486/2017
UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 28.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.884/2013
3
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, ADDITINAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal and cross objection are directed against judgment and award dated 28.01.2017 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Hubli, in M.V.C.No.884/2013.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, claimant was dashed against by a tanker and sustained grievous injuries. He filed instant petition seeking compensation. He sustained fracture of both bones, forearm right, fracture of clavicle right, fracture of super and inferior pubic rami and head injury. He was treated in a private hospital as an inpatient for 15 days. On appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of 4 Rs.2,92,712/- and held the owner of the tanker liable to pay the compensation and absolved the insurer.
4. Feeling aggrieved by Tribunal's judgment and award, owner of the tanker has filed M.F.A.No.101486/2017 questioning the liability and the claimant has filed M.F.A.Crob.100016/2018 seeking enhancement of compensation.
5. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, both the appeal and cross objection are taken up for final disposal.
6. Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned advocate for the owner of the tanker submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the tanker did not possess a valid driving license is unsustainable. He submitted that the driver held a 'transport license' and it authorized him to drive the tanker in question. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in RENU AND ANOTHER VS. THE ORIENTAL 5 INSURANCE CO., LTD., AND ANOTHER (ILR 2014 KAR 2592).
7. Sri Ashok T.Kattimani, learned advocate for the claimant submitted that compensation awarded under the heads 'loss of earning due to disability, loss of future comforts, loss of income during laid-up period, 'transport' and 'nutrition' are on lower side. He submitted that the claimant was 18 years old when the accident took place and therefore, multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied.
8. Sri R.R. Mane, learned advocate for insurer though argued in support of the Tribunal's judgment, did not seriously dispute the contention urged by Sri Hanumanthreddy Sahukar.
9. To a query posed by this Court as to whether a licence to drive an LMV would authorize the holder of licence to drive an oil tanker, the answer was in the positive. It is an admitted position that the driver of the tanker was holding licence to drive a transport vehicle. 6 Under Section 10 of the M.V.Act, there is no special nomenclature to define an 'oil tanker'. In that view of the matter and in view of the judgment of this Court in Renu (supra), it has to be held that the driver of the oil tanker was authorized to drive the vehicle in question.
10. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, on appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal has recorded that the claimant was treated as an inpatient from 23.05.2018 to 08.06.2013 at KIMS & Shreyas Hospital, Hubballi. The doctor has certified that claimant has suffered 40% disability to limbs. The Tribunal reckoned 1/3rd of 40% which works out to 13% as whole body disability. Claimant has pleaded that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and the Tribunal has accepted the same based on evidence. Claimant was 18 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the correct applicable multiplier is 18. Tribunal has calculated loss of earning due to disability by adopting multiplier of 16. The same requires to be corrected. Further keeping in view the fracture of both bones of the 7 right forearm, fracture of right clavicle, fracture of super and inferior pubic ramus and head injury, the compensation awarded under the heads loss of future comforts, loss of income during laid up period and food, transport etc. requires enhancement. It is accordingly computed as follows:
1) Pain & suffering Rs.30,000/-
2) Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,68,480/-
(Rs.6,000x13%x12x18)
3) Medical expenses Rs.77,952/-
(as per actuals)
4) Discomforts of life Rs.35,000/-
5) Loss of income during laid
up period Rs.5,000/-
6) Food, transport &
nourishment Rs.10,000/-
7) Future medical expenses Rs.3,000/-
Sub Total Rs.3,29,432/-
Less: compensation awarded
By Tribunal Rs.2,92,712/-
Enhanced compensation Rs.36,720/-
11. In the light of the above discussion, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal in M.F.A.No.101486/2017 is allowed.8
ii) The judgment and award dated 28.01.2017 in M.V.C.No.884/2013, passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge & Addl. M.A.C.T., Hubli, so far as it relates to absolving the insurer is set aside and it is held that insurer shall be liable to indemnify the owner.
iii) M.F.A.Crob. No.100016/2018 is allowed in part by granting an enhanced compensation of Rs.36,720/ with interest at 6% p.m.,/-
iv) appellant-insurer is directed to deposit the sum of Rs.3,29,432/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim till the date of deposit within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Registry shall refund the amount in deposit placed by the appellant in M.F.A.No.101486/2017, if a request is made by the appellant in that behalf.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE J m / N aa