Partly allowed

Geetanjali @ Geethamma W/O Sharanappa v. C G Gurubasavaraj S/O C G Siddalingappa

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2019MFA/102756/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed appeals by the insurance company while partly allowing appeals filed by accident claimants. The court held the insurer liable citing Mukund Dewangan and enhanced compensation for future loss of income and pain and suffering for two victims.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced compensation amounts into the Tribunal. MRs 102978 and 102756 allowed in part; MRs 102875 and 102953 dismissed.

Geetanjali @ Geethamma W/O Sharanappa Vs C G… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶5

MFA NO.102875 OF 2014 C/w. MFA.NOS.102953, 102978, 102756 OF 2014 (MV/I)

¶6

MFA NO.102875 OF 2014 :

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, RAGHAVENDRACHARI ROAD, OPP: RADHIKA TALKIES, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY

¶9

... APPELLANT (BY SRI. M K SOUDAGAR, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

GEETHAMMA @ GEETHANJALI W/O SHARANAPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, R/O: PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT BAPUJI NAGAR, KUDLIGI,NOW RESIDING AT BEECHI NAGAR, KAPPAGAL ROAD,GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARY.

¶12

C G GURUBASAVARAJ S/O C G SIDDALINGAPPA, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: AMMANKERE, KUDLIGI TALUK,

¶13

A SURESH S/O A. THIPPESWAMY, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HARAKABHAVI, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARY DISTRIC

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SANTOSH MANE FOR R1;

¶16

¶17

NOTICE TO R2 DISPENSED WITH; NOTICE TO R3 SERVED)

¶18

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.89/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V, BALLARI.

¶19

IN MFA NO.102953 OF 2014 :

¶20

BETWEEN

¶21

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., RAGHAVENDRACHARI ROAD, OPP.RADHIKA TALKIES, BELLARY, DIST: BELLARY.

¶22

... APPELLANT

¶23

(BY SRI.M K SOUDAGAR,ADV.)

¶24

AND

¶25

SHAILAJA @ NALINI W/O S UMESH AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O: PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT B.G.KORE,MOLAKALMURU TALUKA, CHITRADURG DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT MAHANANDI KOTTAM, TALLUR ROAD,BELLARY.

¶26

C G GURUBASAVARAJ S/O C G SIDDALINGAPPA AGE: 28 YEARS,OCC: DRIVER, R/O. AMMANKERE, KUDLIGI TALUKA.

¶27

A SURESH S/O A THIPPESWAMY, AGE: 48 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: HARAKABHAVI, KUDLIGI TALUKA, BELLARY DISTRICT.

¶28

... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. SANTOSH MANE, ADV. FOR R1; SRI.A.S.PATIL, ADV. FOR R2 AND 3)

¶30

¶31

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.90/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V, BALLARI.

¶32

IN MFA NO.102978 OF 2014 :

¶33

BETWEEN

¶34

SHAILAJA @ NALINI W/O S UMESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, SAREE BUSINESS, PREVEOUSLY RESIDING AT B G KERE, MOLAKALMURU TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT MAHANANDI KOTTAM, TALUR ROAD, BELLARY. ... APPELLANT

¶35

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE, ADV.)

¶36

AND

¶37

C G GURUBASAVARAJ S/O C G SIDDALINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, DRIVER OF GOODS VEHICLE, BEARING REG NO KA 35/A 2638 R/O AMMANAKERE KUDLIGI TALUK DIST: BELLARY

¶38

A SURESH S/O TIPPESWAMY AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING, REG NO KA35/A 2638 R/O HARAKABHAVI, KUDLIGI TALUK, DIST: BELLARY

¶39

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED BELLARY. ... RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI.A S PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2; SRI.M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R3.)

¶41

¶42

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 2.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.90/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V, BALLARI.

¶43

IN MFA NO.102756 OF 2014 :

¶44

BETWEEN

¶45

GEETANJALI @ GEETHAMMA W/O SHARANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O: BEECHI NAGARM, KAPPAGAL ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, BELLARY.

¶46

... APPELLANT

¶47

(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE, ADV.)

¶48

AND

¶49

C G GURUBASAVARAJ S/O C G SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, DRIVER OF GOODS VEHICLE BEARING REG NO.KA35/A 2638 R/O: AMMANAKERE, KUDLIGI TALUK, DIST: BELLARY.

¶50

A SURESH S/O A TIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REG NO.KA35/A 2638 R/O.HARAKABHAVI, KUDLIGI TALUK, DIST: BELLARY.

¶51

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BELLARY ... RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. M.K.SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND 2 SERVED)

¶53

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED

¶54

¶55

02.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC.NO.89/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MACT-V, BALLARI.

¶56

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

JUDGMENT

¶58

These appeals are filed by the insurance company

¶59

and as well as the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 02-08-2011 passed by the Member, MACT, Bellary, (“the Tribunal” for short) in MVC Nos.89 and 90 of 2011, whereby the tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.79,200/- in MVC.No.89/2011 and Rs.75,400/- in MVC.No.90/2011 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

¶60

Brief facts of the case are that on 16.12.2009 at about 4.00 p.m. when the claimants were sitting infront of Tomb of Sree Mayamma Temple at Ganagudda, the driver of the goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35/A-2638 drove the same in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed against claimants. As a result of which, claimants sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident they

¶61

¶62

were shifted to Government Hospital, Jagalur for treatment. Thereafter, they took treatment at City Central Hospital, Davanagere as inpatients for some days. After recovering from the injuries, the claimants have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ballari, in MVC Nos.89 and 90 of 2011 seeking compensation.

¶63

To establish their case, the claimants examined themselves as PWs-1 & 2 and examined one witness Dr.Lakshminarayana as PW.3 and got marked 146 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-146. On the other hand the insurance company has examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked two documents as EXs.R.1 and R.2.

¶64

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.79,200/- in MVC.No.89/2011 and Rs.75,400/- in MVC.No.90/2011 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and fastened the liability on the

¶65

¶66

insurance company. Being aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has filed MFA.Nos.102875 and 102953 of 2014 and the claimants have filed MFA.Nos.102978 & 102756 of 2014 for enhancement of compensation amount.

¶67

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has contended that as on the date of the accident the driver of the Tata goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35/A-2638 was holding only LMV (non-transport) driving licence. But at the time of the accident, he was driving goods vehicle, which is contrary to the policy condition. He further contended that compensation granted by the tribunal is just and proper.

¶68

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 3668 the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. He

¶69

¶70

further contended that at the time of the accident claimants were earning Rs.5,000/- per month, but the tribunal was not justified in taking the income of the claimants as Rs.4,500/- per month. Secondly he contended that due to the accident claimants have suffered grievous injuries. They were treated as inpatient for a period of 15 days, but the tribunal has granted meager compensation amount under the head of pain and suffering. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶71

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

¶72

It is not in dispute that the claimants have suffered injuries in the accident that occurred on 16.12.2009 due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35/A-2638. At the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving licence to drive LMV (NT), but he was driving the transport vehicle.

¶73

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund

¶74

¶75

Dewangan supra has specifically held that the driver having valid and effective driving licence to drive the LMV NT need not obtain a special endorsement for driving LMV Transport vehicle or passenger vehicle. In view of the above finding, the tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. Accordingly, appeals filed by the insurance company i.e. MFA.Nos.102875 & 102953 of 2014 are dismissed.

¶76

In MFA.No.102978/2014 : At the time of the accident the claimant was aged about 28 years and was doing saree business. PW.3-Dr.Lakshminarayana in his deposition has deposed that claimant-Shailaja has got swollen tender left lower limb region, left lower back region. Because of the said injuries, she finds difficulty to turn side, squat, unable to bear the weight, thereby affecting her physical activities and that of profession. Due to the said accident, she has got partial permanent disability to an extent of 20%. Taking into consideration the disability and deposition of Doctor-PW.3 and also wound certificate produced at EX.P.83 and disability

¶77

¶78

certificate produced at EX.P.145, the tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 5%. So far as the income is concerned, the tribunal was not justified in taking income of the claimant-Shailaja as Rs.4,500/- per month. In view of the depositions of PWs. 1 and 2 and on the basis of material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the income of the claimant-Shailaja has to be taken as Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, future loss of income has been reassessed as Rs.5,000x12x17=Rs.10,20,000/- 5% of Rs.10,20,000/which comes to Rs.51,000/-.

¶79

In MFA.No.102756/2014 : At the time of the

¶80

accident claimant-Geetamma was aged about 32 years and doing tailoring work. Due to the accident the claimant has suffered blunt injury to the right lower limb, swollen tender pelvic region. Dr.Lakshminarayana-PW.3, in his deposition has specifically stated that there is disability to an extent of 20%. Taking into consideration the injuries suffered by the claimant and the wound certificate produced by the claimant at Ex.P.6, this court

¶81

¶82

is of the opinion that under the category of pain and suffering the compensation has to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, the appeals filed by the claimants in MFA.Nos.102978 & 102756 of 2014 are allowed in part.

¶83

The claimant in MFA.No.102978/2014 is entitled for compensation as under:

¶84

1	Towards pain and suffering	Rs.10,000/-
2	TowardsMedicalexpenses	Rs.16,500/-
3	Futureloss of income	Rs.51,000/-
	Total	Rs.77,500/-

¶85

Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total

¶86

compensation of Rs.77,500/-.

¶87

The claimant in MFA.No.102756/2014 is entitled for compensation as under:

¶88

1	Towards painand suffering	Rs.40,000/-
2	Towards Medical expenses	Rs.26,000/-
3	Future loss of income	Rs.43,200/-
	Total	Rs.1,09,200/-

¶89

¶90

Therefore, the claimant is entitled for total

¶91

compensation of Rs.1,09,200/-.

¶92

Appeals filed by the insurance company i.e. MFA.Nos.102875 & 102953 of 2014 are dismissed. Appeals filed by the claimants i.e MFA.Nos.102978/2014 & 102756/2014 are allowed in part.

¶93

Insurance company is directed to deposit entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶94

Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.

¶95

Sd/-

¶96

JUDGE

¶97

Geetanjali @ Geethamma W/O Sharanappa v. C G Gurubasavaraj S/O C G Siddalingappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetanjali @ Geethamma W/O Sharanappa v. C G Gurubasavaraj S/O C G Siddalingappa

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

Roopa W/O. Nagaraj Meharwade Vs Saiman W/O. Frances Bareto

The Divisional Manager Vs Manjula W/O Basappa Bangi

The Divisional Manager, Vs Anil Kumar

Bhautish S/O. Andru Lobo Vs the Divisional Manager

Smt.Lalitavva W/O Tirakappa Kabbur Vs Smt.Parvatevva W./O Shivarudrappa Doddamani

The Divisional Manager Vs Bhautish Andreu Lobo