Partly allowed

Rahul Durgappa Patil Occ Student R/O.Chandur Post v. Maruti S/O.Gangappa Kedari Major Occ Business

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2019MFA/20450/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed appeals partly, modifying the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The Court directed the insurer to pay compensation to the first 12 injured passengers and held the vehicle owner liable for others. It also enhanced compensation for two minor claimants suffering disfigurement.

What did the court decide?

Insurance company directed to pay compensation to first 12 persons listed; insurer liable limited to 12+1, owner liable for rest. Compensation enhanced for two minor claimants.

Rahul Durgappa Patil Occ Student R/O.Chandur Post Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI

¶5

M.F.A. NO. 22722/2010 C/W

¶6

M.F.A. NO. 22723/2010, M.F.A. NO. 22728/2010, M.F.A. NO. 20450/2010, M.F.A. NO. 20451/2010 AND M.F.A. NO. 22730/2010 (MV)

¶7

IN M.F.A. NO. 22722/2010

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI.

¶10

APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

KUMAR RAHUL DURGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O CHANDUR, POST: KHANAGAON-KH, TALUK & DISTRICT: BELGAUM, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL FATHER SRI DURGAPPA Y. PATIL.

¶14

SRI. MARUTI S/O GANGAPPA KEDARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,

¶15

¶16

R/O SHIDDANNAVAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELGAUM.

¶17

RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI AND C.S. SANGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.08.2009 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO. 1586/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM & ETC.

¶20

IN M.F.A. NO. 22723/2010

¶21

BETWEEN

¶22

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI.

¶23

APPELLANT

¶24

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND

¶26

KUMAR SANJEEV S/O PARASHARAM BHAJANTRI, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT, R/O SULEBHAVI TALUK & DISTRICT: BELGAUM, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER PARASHARAM BALAPPA BHAJANTRI,

¶27

SRI. MARUTI S/O GANGAPPA KEDARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O SHIDDANNAVAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELGAUM.

¶28

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI AND

¶29

¶30

C.S. SANGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶31

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.08.2009 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO. 1587/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM & ETC.

¶32

IN M.F.A. NO. 22728/2010

¶33

BETWEEN

¶34

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI.

¶35

APPELLANT

¶36

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND

¶38

ADIVEPPA SATTEPPA BELAVADI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O CHANDUR, POST: KHANAGAON-KH, TALUK & DISTRICT: BELGAUM.

¶39

SRI. MARUTI S/O GANGAPPA KEDARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O SHIDDANNAVAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELGAUM.

¶40

RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI AND C.S. SANGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶41

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.08.2009 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO.

¶42

¶43

1592/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM & ETC.

¶44

IN M.F.A. NO. 20450/2010

¶45

BETWEEN

¶46

KUMAR RAHUL DURGAPPA PATIL, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O CHANDUR, POST: KHANAGAON-KH, TAL: DIST: BELGAUM, SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER DURGAPPA Y. PATIL.

¶47

APPELLANT

¶48

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND

¶49

SRI. MARUTI S/O GANGAPPA KEDARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O SHIDDANNAVAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELGAUM (OWNER OF MAXI CAB BEARING NO.KA-22/A-1032).

¶50

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, (INSURER OF MAXI CAB NO.KA-22/A-1032). - RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶52

¶53

¶54

IN M.F.A. NO. 20451/2010

¶55

BETWEEN

¶56

KUMAR SANJEEV, S/O PARASHRAM BHAJANTRI, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O SULEBHAVI, TAL & DIST: BELGAUM SINCE MINOR R/P BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER PARASHRAM BALAPPA BHAJANTRI - APPELLANT

¶57

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. MARUTI S/O GANGAPPA KEDARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O SHIDDANNAVAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELGAUM (OWNER OF MAXI CAB BEARING NO.KA-22/A-1032). 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, (INSURER OF MAXI CAB NO.KA-22/A-1032). - RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

¶59

¶60

¶61

IN M.F.A. NO. 22730/2010

¶62

BETWEEN

¶63

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUJATHA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI.

¶64

APPELLANT

¶65

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND

¶66

BALAKRISHNA S/O BHARAMAPPA MAKKALAGERI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O CHANDUR, POST: KHANAGAON-KH, TALUK & DISTRICT: BELGAUM.

¶67

SRI. MARUTI S/O GANGAPPA KEDARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O SHIDDANNAVAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, TALUK AND DISTRICT BELGAUM.

¶68

RESPONDENTS

¶69

(BY SRI. RAVI V. HOSAMANI AND C.S. SANGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶70

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.08.2009 PASSED IN M.V.C. NO. 1594/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-III AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, BELGAUM & ETC.

¶71

¶72

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

¶73

JUDGMENT

¶74

M.F.A. No. 22722/2010, 22723/2010, 22728/2010

¶75

and 22730/2010 are preferred by the Insurance Company whereas the claimants have preferred M.F.A. No. 20450/2010 and 20451/2010. All these appeals are preferred against the judgment passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III and Member, Addl. MACT, Belgaum (for short ‘AMACT’) in M.V.C. No. 1586/2004, 1587/2004, 1592/2004, 1586/2004, 1587/2004 and 1594/2004 respectively.

¶76

On 29.07.2003 the claimants and others were

¶77

traveling in the maxi cab bearing no. KA-22/A-1032 towards Kudalsangam. The maxi cab had turtled down at Kudalasangam (self accident) resulted in number of injuries caused to 20 persons, who were traveling in the aforesaid vehicle. Arising out of the aforesaid accident

¶78

¶79

claimants have filed claim petitions before the AMACT and AMACT proceeded to pass award. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the AMACT, Insurance Company as well as the claimants have filed appeals.

¶80

M.F.A. No. 22722/2010, 22723/2010, 22728/2010 and

¶81

22730/2010

¶82

The main contention of the Insurance Company is that, in terms of the seating capacity read with the policy, the Insurance Company is liable to meet the compensation only to 12+1 persons, whereas the driver has not claimed compensation. Therefore, they are liable to pay compensation only to 12 persons. In respect of fastening liability to compensation to other persons, it requires to be fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶83

During the pendency of the petition, instead of releasing the compensation amount to 12 persons with higher award of compensation, the Insurance Company

¶84

¶85

has committed error in releasing the compensation to lesser awarded compensation which was awarded to injured persons ignoring four persons among the higher awarded compensation. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to first 12 persons whose award is from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.5,53,000/-. Since the Insurance Company has paid compensation to R.T.Bhandari and S.M. Morkar in M.V.C. No. 1569/2004 and 1570/2004 respectively the where the compensation is only Rs.4,000/- each. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the other four persons who have been awarded compensation on higher side.

¶86

The following statement which requires to be examined by the Insurance Company insofar as extending compensation.

¶87

¶88

Sl. No.	MVC No.	MACT	Petitioner name	Award	Status
1.	2415/03	Belgaum	Kalavathi	553000	Paid
2.	1586/04	Belgaum	R D Patil	85000	Appeal
3.	1587/04	Belgaum	S P Bhajantri	44500	Appeal
4.	2456/03	Belgaum	R N Hosamani	30000	Paid
5.	1592/04	Belgaum	A S Belavadi	13500	Appeal
6.	1594/04	Belgaum	B B Makalageri	11000	Appeal
7.	1572/04	Belgaum	NSBhangi	10000	Paid
8.	1589/04	Belgaum	H Y Bhajantri	9000	Appeal
9.	1595/04	Belgaum	B N Marihal	9000	Appeal
10.	2585/05	Belgaum	S R Dhawali	7000	Paid
11.	1571/04	Belgaum	CB Kallur	6000	Paid
12.	1593/04	Belgaum	K.S. Bhajantri	6000	Appeal
			Total	784000
13.	1588/04	Belgaum	D Y Patil	5500	Appeal
14.	2245/07	Belgaum	K M Upadya	5000	Appeal
15.	1569/04	Belgaum	R T Bhandari	4000	Paid
16.	1570/04	Belgaum	S M Morkar	4000	Paid
17.	1590/04	Belgaum	A D Bhajantri	4000	Appeal
18.	1591/04	Belgaum	M P Bhajantri	4000	Appeal
19.	1596/04	Belgaum	K H Holi	3000	Appeal
20.	2584/03	Belgaum	GB Bandigani		Dismissed

¶89

In view of the above facts and circumstances, no doubt it is true that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation only to 12+1 persons. Undisputedly the driver has not claimed compensation. Consequently, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to 12 persons with reference to the above statement the Insurance Company is hereby directed to pay

¶90

¶91

compensation to the persons who have been paid within Sl. No. 1 to 12 in addition to what has been paid to Sl. No.

¶92

15 and 16 in the aforesaid statement. The rest of the persons claim is required to be decided with reference to the owners liability. Thus, the AMACT has committed error in not fastening liability to pay compensation to persons / passengers other than 12 persons/ passengers, on the owner of the offending vehicle. To that extent, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified.

¶93

In M.F.A. No. 20450/2010

¶94

The claimant has filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. In paragraph no. 10 of the award, it has been discussed to the extent of the age of the injured is six years and nature of injury he had suffered. It is stated that left ear is not completely visible and osseo integrated ear prothesis is suffered other than the injury over left side of his forehead which has been

¶95

¶96

extracted in paragraph no. 10 of the award and proceeded to award compensation of Rs.85,000/- under various heads. For disfigurement, a meager amount of Rs.8,000/has been awarded. Similarly, under the head of loss of amenities, future unhappiness Rs.15,000/- which are too meager. Therefore, under the disfigurement and loss of amenities and future unhappiness, the claimant is entitled to another sum of Rs.75,000/- towards disfigurement and

¶97

a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and unhappiness since the claimant has to face hardship during his entire life without left side ear which may be a hurdle both on personal as well as in the society. Therefore, to the above extent, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,60,000/as against Rs.85,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the award insofar as the present appeal is concerned, remains unaltered.

¶98

¶99

In M.F.A. No. 20451/2010

¶100

The claimant in M.V.C. No. 1587/2004 sought for enhancement of compensation from Rs.44,500/-. The AMACT has extracted the nature of the injuries suffered by him and so also the permanent disability with reference to

¶101

his left hand. He is aged about 11 years. The award of compensation under the conventional heads are too meager. Hence, he is entitled to global compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- instead of Rs.45,000/-. To that extent, the

¶102

appeal filed by the claimant is allowed.

¶103

In view of disposal of the appeals, all the pending applications also stand disposed off.

¶104

Amount in deposit, if any, before this Court, be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶105

¶106

JUDGE

¶107

bvv

Rahul Durgappa Patil Occ Student R/O.Chandur Post v. Maruti S/O.Gangappa Kedari Major Occ Business

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Durgappa Patil Occ Student R/O.Chandur Post v. Maruti S/O.Gangappa Kedari Major Occ Business

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaappap @ Shivaji Ramappa Mulgund Vs Sri. Ganesh Vishusa Miskin

Smt.Shivalingava W/O. Somalingappa Abbar Vs Yallappa Vithal Koppad

Sharanappa S/O. Ningappa Umachagi Vs Smt. Yamanabee W/O Mahammadsab Hosamani

Dundawwa W/O. Shivappa Mantoor Vs Sangappa Shanabasappa Andani @ Ullagaddi

Sanjeev S/O.Parashram Bhajantri Occ Student Vs Maruti S/O.Gangappa Kedari Major Occ Business

Sumitra W/O Hanamanth Shapure Vs Dundappa S/O Balapa Gurlapur