Karnataka High Court
B.A. Raghavendra vs Purushotham on 12 June, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:20813
MFA No. 1743 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1743 OF 2017(MV-I)
BETWEEN:
B.A. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O B.K. ANANTHAPADMANABHA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
COMPUTER OPERATOR AND ALSO DTP WORKER IN
VINYAS ASSOCIATES CHITRADURGA,
R/O IST BLOCK, KAMBLI BEEDI,
NEAR CSI CHURCH,
CHITRADURGA-577 501
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PURUSHOTHAM
S/O VENKATESHA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
OWNER OF AUTORICKSHAW BEARING
Digitally signed by KA-16/A-3016, CHANNAKKIHONDA,
BASAVARAJU
PAVITHRA B.D. ROAD,
Location: HIGH COURT CHITRADURGA-577 501.
OF KARNATAKA
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NO.1 AND 2, IST FLOOR,
MAGANUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
B.D. ROAD,
CHITRADURGA-577 501
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.C. BETSUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DATED 14.12.2023, NOTICE TO R1
IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:20813
MFA No. 1743 of 2017
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.135/15 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, 4TH MACT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 21.10.2016 in MVC.No.135/2015 passed by the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and IV MACT at Chitradurga, seeking enhancement of compensation and questioning the liability fastened on the owner of the Auto Riksha.
The factum of accident and injury sustained by the claimant are not disputed. The disputable fact is regarding the liability fastened on the owner of the Auto Riksha. -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:20813 MFA No. 1743 of 2017
2. Brief facts are as under.
2.1. The claimant was moving in an Auto Riksha bearing Reg.No.KA-16-A-3016 as a passenger on 29.09.2014 at about 10.45 a.m. While proceeding in front of Jayalakshmi Cotton Mill, Chitradurga, the driver of said Auto Riksha drove it in rash and negligent manner with high speed and toppled on the left side of road. Due to which the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the claim petition was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation under various heads as follows:
Sl.No Description Amount in Rs.
1. Pain and suffering 2,00,000/-
Medical and incidental
2. 1,50,000/-
expenses(1,20,046)
Permanent Disability
3. 1,17,000/-
(10% of Rs.6,500X12X15)
Total Rs. 4,67,000/-
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:20813
MFA No. 1743 of 2017
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is lower side and also fastening the liability on the owner is not correct, since the driver of vehicle is holding license for light motor vehicle (non-transport) but the vehicle in question is light motor vehicle (transport). Therefore, the issue is squarely covered by Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited1.
6. From the evidence and record it is proved that in the accident the claimant has suffered fracture of left proximal humerus and other injuries. The Tribunal has awarded compensation Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering for such single injury is found to be on higher side. The Doctor has assessed that the claimant has suffered 57% as a permanent physical disability, which is 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:20813 MFA No. 1743 of 2017 higher side. The claimant being a DTP operator and it requires sitting work continuously for hours. Therefore, certainly it affects functioning of the claimant being DTP worker. The Tribunal has taken 10% as function disability, which needs to held to be on higher side.
7. Therefore, though the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation under the head loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability, but Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- under the head injury pain and suffering is found to be higher side. Considering the quantum of compensation is not awarded on certain other heads i.e., under the loss of the income during the laid up period, loss of amenities, loss of future medical expenses etc., that is taken care by the amount awarded under the head of pain and suffering. Therefore, considering the over all quantum of compensation awarded and considering the nature of injury sustained and profession of claimant, over all compensation amount awarded by the tribunal to the claimant is found to be adequate and sufficient which need -6- NC: 2024:KHC:20813 MFA No. 1743 of 2017 not be enhanced. Whatever, the compensation amount awarded under the head permanent disability by the Tribunal though found to be lesser side, but the higher amount granted takes care the compensation amount awarded under the pain and suffering. Therefore, this Court found there is no merits for enhancement of compensation amount. Therefore, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is kept intact.
8. In the present case, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the owner of the Auto Riksha on the reason that the driver was holding driving licence for light motor vehicle (non-transport) but the Auto Riksha is light motor vehicle (transport Vehicle). The issue canvassed by the both the parties is squarely covered by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited2. It is held that, if the person holds driving licence of light motor vehicle (non- transport) can also drive light motor vehicle (transport). 2 (2017) 14 SCC 663 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:20813 MFA No. 1743 of 2017 Therefore, there is no fundamental breach so as to exonerate the insurance company. Therefore, fastening liability on the owner is liable to be modified. Accordingly, it is held that the insurance company shall indemnify the owner of the Auto Riksha and pay compensation. Therefore, the appeal liable to be allow in part. Hence, I proceed to pass following.
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part;
ii. The judgment and award dated
21.10.2016 in MVC No.135/2015
passed by the learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and IV MACT at Chitradurga, is confirmed so for as compensation amount awarded and modified to the extent by fastening liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimant.
iii. The award amount shall carry interest rate at 6%, p.a. from the date of the petition till realization.
-8- NC: 2024:KHC:20813 MFA No. 1743 of 2017 iv. No order as to cost. v. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- JUDGE ASN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17