Partly allowed

The Branch Manager, v. Shri. Gurusiddappa S/O. Shivamurthy Badiger

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2019MFA/100663/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the insurer's appeals and partially allowed cross-objections filed by four claimants in four separate motor accident cases. While upholding liability despite the driver's lack of a 'transport' endorsement, the judge reassessed compensation for all claimants downwards or upwards based on corrected disability percentages and income figures.

What did the court decide?

Appeals filed by insurer dismissed. Cross-objections by claimants allowed in part. Compensation reassessed to Rs.2,27,280; Rs.2,76,060; Rs.1,12,740; and Rs.2,28,600 respectively.

The Branch Manager, Vs Shri. Gurusiddappa S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100662 of 2017

¶7

a/w MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NOs.100663 of 2017, 100664 of 2017, 100678 of 2017 AND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL CROSS OBJECTION Nos.100083 of 2017, 100084 of 2017, 100085 of 2017 and 100086 of 2017 (MV)

¶8

IN MFA NO.100662 OF 2017 BETWEEN

¶9

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT.SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(By Sri. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADV. )

¶12

AND

¶13

SHRI. MANJUNATH CHANDRAPPA ALAWAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PAN SHOP BUSINESS, R/O: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶14

MR. FAKIRAPPA CHANDRAKANT ALLAWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BOLASHETTI CHAWL, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF THE TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO. KA06/C1585) ... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(By Sri.H.R. LATUR, ADV. FOR R1. R2 SERVED)

¶16

¶17

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2644 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,98,360/- WITH FUTURE INTEREST AT 6% P.A. ON RS.1,83,360/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶18

IN MFA NO.100663 OF 2017 BETWEEN

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT.SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶20

... APPELLANT

¶21

(By Sri. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADV. )

¶22

AND

¶23

SHRI. GURUSIDDAPPA S/O. SHIVAMURTHY BADIGER, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER, R/O: MARAKUMBI, TQ: SOUNDATTI, NOW AT CHIKKABAGEWADI TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶24

MR. FAKIRAPPA CHANDRAKANT ALLAWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BOLASHETTI CHAWL, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF THE TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO. KA06/C1585) ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.H.R. LATUR, ADV. FOR R1. R2 SERVED)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND

¶26

¶27

AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2643 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,92,780/- WITH FUTURE INTEREST AT 6% P.A. ON RS.1,82,780/- FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶28

IN MFA NO.100664 OF 2017 BETWEEN

¶29

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT.SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶30

... APPELLANT

¶31

(By Sri. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADV. )

¶32

AND

¶33

SHRI. WASIM S/O. ABDUL TIGADI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: CENTERING & BAR BENDING WORK, R/O: NEGINAL, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶34

MR. FAKIRAPPA CHANDRAKANT ALLAWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶35

(OWNER OF THE TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO. KA06/C1585)

¶36

... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.H.R. LATUR, ADV. FOR R1. R2 SERVED)

¶37

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2646 OF 2007

¶38

¶39

ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,54,800/- WITH FUTURE INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.

¶40

IN MFA NO.100678 OF 2017 BETWEEN

¶41

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE SUMANGALA COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR, STATION ROAD, HUBBALLI REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.

¶42

... APPELLANT

¶43

(By Sri. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, Adv. )

¶44

AND

¶45

SHRI. GANGAPPA S/O. FAKKIRAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 63 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: NEGINAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶46

MR. FAKIRAPPA CHANDRAKANT ALLAWAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BOLASHETTI CHAWL, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶47

(OWNER OF THE TEMPO TRAX BEARING NO. KA06/C1585) ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV. FOR R1 R2 sd.)

¶48

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2645 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL

¶49

¶50

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.99,180/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶51

IN MFA.CROB NO.100083 OF 2017 BETWEEN

¶52

SHRI. MANJUNATH S/O CHANDRAPPA ALAWAD, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: PAN SHOP BUSINESS, NOW NIL, R/O: BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶53

... CROSS OBJECTOR

¶54

(By Sri. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV.)

¶55

AND:

¶56

FAKIRAPPA S/O CHANDRAKANT ALLAWAD AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BOLASHETTI CHAWL BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591110

¶57

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590002

¶58

... RESPONDENTS

¶59

(By Sri. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶60

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100662/2017 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC R/W SEC. 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO. 2644/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶61

¶62

IN MFA.CROB NO.100084 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

¶63

SHRI. GURUSIDDAPPA S/O SHIVAMURTHY BADIGER, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CARPENTER, NOW NIL, R/O: MARAKUMBI, TQ: SAUNDATTI NOW AT CHIKKABAGEWADI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. (By Sri. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV.)

¶64

... CROS OBJECTOR

¶65

AND

¶66

FAKIRAPPA S/O CHANDRAKANT ALLAWAD AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BOLASHETTI CHAWL BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591110

¶67

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590002

¶68

... RESPONDENTS

¶69

(By Sri. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2. NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶70

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100663/2017 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., READ WITH SECTION.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2643/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶71

IN MFA.CROB NO.100085 OF 2017 BETWEEN:

¶72

SHRI. WASIM S/O ABDUL TIGADI AGE: 21 YEARS,

¶73

¶74

OCC: CENTERING AND BAR BENDING, NOW NIL, R/O: BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶75

... CROSS OBJECTOR

¶76

(By Sri. HANAMANT R LATUR, ADV.)

¶77

AND

¶78

FAKIRAPPA S/O CHANDRAKANT ALLAWAD AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BOLASHETTI CHAWL BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DISTA: BELAGAVI-591110

¶79

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590002 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri N.R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2. NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶80

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100664/2017 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., READ WITH SECTION.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2646/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶81

IN MFA.CROB NO.100086 OF 2017 BETWEEN

¶82

SHRI. GANGAPPA S/O FAKIRAPPA TALAWAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, NOW NIL, R/O: NEGINHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. ... CROSS OBJECTOR (By Sri. HANUMANT R LATUR, ADV.)

¶83

¶84

AND:

¶85

FAKIRAPPA S/O CHANDRAKANT ALLAWAD AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BOLASHETTI CHAWL BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DISTA: BELAGAVI-591110

¶86

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AT SHANBAG CHAMBERS, KIRLOSKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590002

¶87

... RESPONDENTS

¶88

(By Sri. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2. NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)

¶89

THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100678/2017 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC., READ WITH SECTION.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.2645/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BAILHONGAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶90

MFAs AND MFA CROSS OBJECTIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶91

JUDGMENT

¶92

Though these appeals came up for hearing on I.A.

¶93

for withdrawing the amount in deposit, with the consent

¶94

of both counsel, they are heard finally.

¶95

Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos.100662 of

¶96

2017, 100663 of 2017, 100664 of 2017 and 100678 of

¶97

¶98

2017 are filed by the insurer whereas MFA Crob No.100083 of 2017, 100084 of 2017, 100085 of 2017 and 100086 of 2017 are filed by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 26^th October 2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’, for short) in MVC Nos.2644 of 2007, 2643 of 2007, 2645 of 2007 and 2646 of 2007.

¶99

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶100

for the appellant-insurer as well as the respondentsclaimants.

¶101

Rank of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for convenience.

¶102

The claimants, one Manjunath Chandrappa

¶103

Alawad filed a petition in MVC No.2644 of 2007, Gurusiddappa Shivamurthy Badiger filed petition in MVC No.2643 of 2007, Gangappa Fakirapa Talawar filed a petition in MVC No.2645 of 2007 and Wasim Abdul Tigadi filed a petition in MVC No.2646 of 2007 under

¶104

¶105

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- respectively inter alia contending that on 25.07.2007 all these claimants were traveling as inmates in a tempo trax bearing registration No.KA06/C-1585 as passengers in order to go to Yaragatti from Bailhongal and at about 9.00 am when the vehicle was near Belgaum-Bagalakot road, near the land of one Koujalagi Ansari, at that time, the driver of the tempo trax drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others and in order to avoid the accident to the bicycle, abruptly took the vehicle by the side of the road and dashed against a road side stone. Due to which, these claimants sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to the hospital and treated as inpatient and due to the injuries sustained by them, they suffered disability. Hence, they filed petitions seeking compensation on various heads.

¶106

¶107

In pursuance to the notice, first respondent-

¶108

owner of the tempo trax appeared through counsel and filed statement of objections in all petitions denying rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo trax and also the age, occupation, income and injuries sustained by the claimants. However, he has contended that the driver of the tempo had valid driving licence and also the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2, if any liability, the same shall be fastened on the second respondent-insurer and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶109

Second respondent-insurer appeared

¶110

through counsel and filed similar objections in all the claim petitions denying the rash and negligent driving as well as injury sustained by the claimants in the said accident and further taken a contention that the claim of the petitioners is exorbitant and excessive and that apart also contended that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and thereby there is violation of

¶111

¶112

the conditions of the policy. Therefore, no liability shall be fixed on the insurer. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.

¶113

Based upon the rival pleadings, the Tribunal

¶114

framed issues and re-casted issues as under:

¶115

Issues:

¶116

Whether the petitioners prove that on 25.07.2007 at about 9.00 am within the limits of Yaragatti near the land of one Koujalagi Ansari on Belgaum–Bagalkot road due to Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-06/C1585 and sustained grievous injuries to them?

¶117

Whether the petitioners are entitle for compensation, if so, at what extent and from whom?

¶118

what order or award?

¶119

Re-casted issues

¶120

Whether the petitioners prove that on 25.07.2007 at about 9.00 am on BelagaviBagalakot road, near the land of one

¶121

¶122

Koujalagi Ansari within the limits of Yaragatti village, they were traveling in a Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-06/C-1585 from Bailhongal to Yaragatti, when the driver of said vehicle came near the spot of accident, he drew the same in a very rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger to the human life an din order to avoid to dash against the bicycle he lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the road side stone and thereby caused accident and in the accident they have sustained grievous injuries?

¶123

Whether the petitioners prove that, on the date of accident driver of offending tempo trax vehicle had valid and effective D.L. to drive the same?

¶124

Whether the petitioners are entitle for compensation, if so, at what extent and from whom?

¶125

What order or award?

¶126

To substantiate their contentions, the claimants themselves examined as PWs.1 to 4 and got

¶127

¶128

examined 2 Doctors as PWs.5 and 6 and got marked 63 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-63. On behalf of the respondents, second respondent-insurer examined one Prabhakar D. Patil as RW-1 and first respondent himself examined as RW-2 and the second respondent insurer examined ARTO, Bailhongal as RW-3 and got marked 4 documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-4.

¶129

By considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal answered re-casted issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and re-casted issue No.3 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.1,98,360/-, Rs.1,92,780/-, Rs.99,180/and Rs.1,54,800/- respectively together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶130

Assailing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurer filed MFA Nos.100662 of 2017, 100663 of 2017, 100664 of 2017 and 100678 of 2017 whereas the claimants filed Cross Objection Nos.100083

¶131

¶132

of 2017, 100084 of 2017, 100085 of 2017 and 100086

¶133

of 2017 seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶134

Counsel for the insurer contended that the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the “transport vehicle” which is a maxi cab which require driving licence with an endorsement ‘transport’ but respondent No.1 allowed a person who did not have valid driving licence and thereby he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the insurer and also taken a contention that the award of compensation by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant which require interference by this Court. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeals.

¶135

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the judgment in respect of finding on fastening the liability on the insurer and contended that the driver of the vehicle was holding LMV driving licence which was valid during and at the time of the accident

¶136

¶137

and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewagan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3668 , separate endorsement with respect to ‘transport’ is not required in order to drive a LMV vehicle ‘transport’. Therefore, fastening the liability on the insurer cannot be interfered with. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeals filed by the insurer. Further, the learned counsel has taken a contention on the quantum of compensation. Though the claimants have produced the wound certificate as well as disability certificates, for having sustained injuries and suffered disability to an extent of 35%, the Tribunal considered the percentage of disability to the whole body on the lower side and even though the claimant in MVC No.2644 of 2007 was a businessman, the claimant in MVC No.2643 of 2007 was a carpenter, the claimant in MVC No.2645 of 2007 was an agriculturist and the claimant in MVC No.2646 of 2007 was a bar bender, the Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- per month as their

¶138

¶139

income without any basis. Therefore, the income of the claimants is required to be enhanced, at least to Rs.6,000/to Rs.7,000/per month. Further contended that the compensation towards loss of amenities and future medical expenses is required to be enhanced. Hence, prayed for allowing the crossobjections.

¶140

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for consideration in these appeals are:

¶141

i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the insurer when the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid transport endorsement in the DL and calls for interference?

¶142

ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶143

iii) What order?

¶144

¶145

The claimants have established the factum

¶146

of accident that occurred on 25.07.2007 when they were travelling as inmates in a tempo trax bearing registration No.KA-06/C-1585 as passengers and when they reached near Yaragatti village, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tempo trax, it met with an accident and the claimants sustaining injuries in the said accident. The accident in question is not in dispute. Therefore, the only controversy in the appeals filed by the insurer is in respect of fastening of liability on the insurer in view of holding driving licence without the endorsement of ‘Transport’ by the driver of the vehicle. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the award passed by the Tribunal has been set aside and remanded the matter back by this Court in MFA No.21476 of 2010 connected with MFA Nos.21475, 21474 and 21477 of 2010 for fresh consideration. Though the counsel for the insurer contended that the matter was remanded by this Court only to consider the issue on liability, the Tribunal has committed an error

¶147

¶148

in enhancing the compensation by considering the matter afresh.

¶149

On perusal of the order of this Court which

¶150

was referred by the Tribunal in para 3 of its judgment, it clearly goes to show that this Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsidering the mater afresh with liberty to both the parties to lead further evidence and to dispose off the matter in accordance with law. The above said observation indicates that this Court has set aside the entire award and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the same. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly reconsidered the matter afresh and fastened the liability on the insurer as well as enhanced the compensation as against the compensation that was awarded earlier. Therefore, this Court cannot find any fault with the award passed by the Tribunal in reconsidering the matter afresh as per the direction of this Court. However, the learned counsel for the insurer contended that the driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle, as per Ex.R-4 was

¶151

¶152

LMV driving licence which did not have any ‘transport’ endorsement. Therefore, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. However, the issue with respect to non-holding of ‘transport’ endorsement by a person who drives LMV vehicle has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) wherein it has been held that a person holding LMV does not require a separate endorsement to drive the LMV transport vehicle, in view of amendment to Section 10(2) of the Act with effect from 14.11.1994 and the Hon’ble Apex Court holding that the driver who is holding LMV licence is entitled to drive LMV transport vehicle also without any separate transport endorsement. Therefore, the dispute raised by the insurer that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, as the driver of the vehicle did not have valid driving licence, cannot be accepted. Therefore, fastening of liability by the Tribunal on the insurer cannot be interfered with. Hence, I answer

¶153

¶154

point No.(i) in favour of the claimants and against the insurer.

¶155

As regards the quantum of compensation, on

¶156

perusal of the computation of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.2644 of 2007 pertaining to Manjunath Chandrappa Alawad, he has suffered fracture of tibia and two simple injuries. Ex.P-5 is the wound certificate, Ex.P-8 is the disability certificate. He also examined the Doctor, who issued the disability certificate, as PW-5, who has stated that Manjunath has suffered 38% disability to the particular limb. Considering the same, the Tribunal assessed the whole body disability at 12%. In my view, the assessment of disability by the Tribunal at 12% to the whole body is correct. As regards income, the Tribunal considered Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of Manjuanth even though the claimant was said to be doing pan shop business. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, even if this Court considers the claimant as an unskilled labour, for the accident of the year 2007,

¶157

¶158

Rs.4,000/- is required to be considered as notional income. If 12% of Rs.4,000/- is taken, it comes to Rs.480/-. If Rs.480/- is multiplied by 12 and 18 multiplier, it comes to Rs.1,03,680/-. This would be the loss of earning capacity. As regards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- which is sufficient. As regards loss of amenities and medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- and Rs.26,600/-, the same is retained. As regards loss of income during laid up period, the Tribunal has considered the laid up period for 3 months and if Rs.4,000/- is considered, it comes to Rs.12,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses, the same is retained. A sum of Rs.15,000/- towards incidental expenses is retained. Hence, the claimant in MFA Crob No.100083 of 2017 in MVC No.2644 of 2007 is entitled to re-assessed compensation as follows:

¶159

¶160

		Rs.
1	Loss ofearning capacity	1,03,680/-
2	Pain and suffering	40,000/-
3	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	15,000/-
4	Medicalexpenses	26,600/-
5	Incidentalcharges1	15,000/-
6	Loss of earning during laid up period	12,000/-
7	Futuremedicalexpenses	15,000/-
	total	2,27,280/-

¶161

The claimant is entitled to re-assessed

¶162

compensation of Rs.2,27,280 as against Rs.1,98,360/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶163

As regards computation of compensation in MVC No.2643 of 2007 pertaining to Gurusiddappa Shivamurthy Badiger, he is said to be a carpenter. The Tribunal has considered Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the claimant which is meager. Even if Rs.200/- is considered as earnings per day, it comes to Rs.6,000/- per month. As per wound certificate Ex.P-

¶164

¶165

24, he has sustained 4 injuries. Considering the disability certificate Ex.P-25, he has suffered 38% disability to the left lower limb. The Tribunal though approximately considered 11% as the disability towards

¶166

the whole body, the same does not require any enhancement. If Rs.6,000/- is considered as income, 11% as the disability, it comes to Rs.660x12x18(multiplier), it comes to Rs.1,42,560/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. In my opinion, the said amount is sufficient. Towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness, medical expenses, incidental charges and future medical expenses in a sum of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.14,500/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively.

¶167

In my opinion, the said amounts are sufficient and are retained. As regards loss of income during laid up period, the Tribunal has considered the laid up period for three months. Considering the laid up period as 4 months, the loss of earning during laid up period would

¶168

¶169

come to Rs.24,000(6,000x4). The claimant is entitled to re-assessed compensation as under:

¶170

Rs.

¶171

1	Loss ofearning capacity	1,42,560/-
2	Painand suffering	50,000/-
3	Loss of amenities and future unhappiness	20,000/-
4	Medicalexpenses	14,500/-
5	Incidentalcharges	15,000/-
6	Loss of earning during laid up period	24,000/-
7	Futuremedicalexpenses	10,000/-
	total	2,76,060/-

¶172

The claimant is entitled to re-assessed compensation of Rs.2,26,060/as against

¶173

Rs.1,92,780/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶174

As regards computation of compensation in MVC No.2645 of 2007 pertaining to Gangapa Fakirappa Talawar, who is an agriculturist, is concerned, he has produced Ex.P-33 wound certificate and Ex.P-34-

¶175

¶176

disability certificate wherein the Doctor has opined that the claimant as suffered 25% disability to the left lower limb. The Tribunal has considered the disability at 8%. The same is sufficient. However, the Tribunal has considered the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month which is meager. Even considering the claimant as an unskilled labour, his income could be assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month. 8% of Rs.4,000/- comes to Rs.320x12x11(multiplier), it comes to Rs.42,240/-. This would be the loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and future unhappiness, Rs.13,500/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses. In my considered opinion, these amounts are sufficient and requires no enhancement. The Tribunal has considered loss of income during laid up period for 3 months. If Rs.4,000/- is the income and the laid up period is taken as 3 months, it would come to Rs.12,000/-. The future medical expenses is not

¶177

¶178

awarded by the Tribunal as there is no evidence in that regard. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to reassessed compensation as follows:

¶179

		R	s.
1	Loss ofearning capacity		42,240/-
2	Pain and suffering		25,000/-
3	Loss of amenities and unhappiness	future	10,000/-
4	Medicalexpenses		13,500/-
5	Incidentalcharges		10,000/-
6	Loss of earning during period	laid up	12,000/-
		total	1,12,740/-

¶180

The claimant is entitled to re-assessed

¶181

compensation of Rs.1,12,740/-as against Rs.99,180/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶182

The claimant in MVC No.2646 of 2007 is Wasim Abdul Tigadi is said to be a bar bending worker. He has sustained 3 injuries. He has examined PW-6Doctor who assessed the disability at 30%. For the

¶183

¶184

vision impairment, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10% to the whole body. In my considered opinion, the percentage of disability considered by the Tribunal is sufficient and it cannot be considered to be on the lower side. However, the claimant has stated that he is a bar binder. Definitely, his income would not be les than Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, I propose to consider Rs.6,000/- as income of the claimant. Thus, 10% of Rs.6,000/- comes to Rs.600x12 x18(multiplier), it comes to Rs.1,29,600/-. This would be the loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future unhappiness. In my considered opinion the said amount awarded by the Tribunal is sufficient and it cannot be said to be either excessive or meager and therefore need not be interfered with. A sum of Rs.11,000/- awarded towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- awarded towards incidental charges is retained. The loss of earning during laid up period is considered for a period of 3 months, which

¶185

¶186

would come to Rs.18,000/-. In all, the claimant is entitled to re-assessed compensation as under:

¶187

		R	s.
1	Loss ofearning capacity		1,29,600/-
2	Painand suffering		50,000/-
3	Loss of amenities and unhappiness	future	10,000/-
4	Medicalexpenses		11,000/-
5	Incidentalcharges		10,000/-
6	Loss of earning during period	laid up	18,000/-
		total	2,28,600/-

¶188

The claimant is entitled to re-assessed compensation of Rs.2,28,600/as against

¶189

Rs.1,54,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶190

Consequently, the appeals in MFA

¶191

Nos.100662 of 2017, 100663 of 2017, 100664 of 2017 and 100678 of 2017 filed by the insurer are hereby dismissed.

¶192

¶193

MFA Cross objection Nos.100083 of 2017,

¶194

100084 of 2017, 100085 of 2017 and 100086 of 2017 filed by the claimants are allowed in part. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,27,280/-, Rs.2,76,060/-, Rs.1,12,740/and Rs.2,28,600/- respectively with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The entire compensation amount shall be released in favour of the claimants on due identification.

¶195

Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned.

¶196

Sri. N.R.Kuppelur, advocate for the insurer is

¶197

permitted to file vakalat within two weeks in the cross objection.

¶198

Sd/-

¶199

JUDGE

¶200

kmv

The Branch Manager, v. Shri. Gurusiddappa S/O. Shivamurthy Badiger

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Shri. Gurusiddappa S/O. Shivamurthy Badiger

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Assistant Commissinoer Vs Mahammad Iqbal S/O Maheboobsab Hongal

The Assistant Commissinoer Vs Basappa Parappa Avaghadnavar

The Assistant Commissinoer Vs Akshay S/O Vishwanath Hampannavar

Fayaz Ahamed S/O. Allabaksha Tigadi Vs Nazeer Ahamad S/O. Muktumasab Mujawar

The Branch Manager, Vs Shri. Wasim S/O. Abdul Tigadi

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shri. Manjunath Chandrappa Alawad