Partly allowed

Dilleppa S/O Sunkappa Koravar v. Mahadevappa S/O Maruteppa Nagarajji

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2019MFA.CROB/100208/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced motor accident compensation from Rs.3,51,700/- to Rs.4,46,600/- due to insufficient awards for injury, income loss, and amenities. It dismissed the insurer's appeal on license validity, citing Supreme Court precedent, and denied interest for the cross-objection delay.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.4,46,600/-; insurance company directed to deposit amount within six weeks; interest for delay in cross-objection denied.

Dilleppa S/O Sunkappa Koravar Vs Mahadevappa S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

MFA No.24941/2013 (MV-I) C/w. MFA Cr.Ob.No.100208/2015

¶7

In MFA No.24941/2013:

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 10003-8, Opp.: RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan State. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶10

… Appellant

¶11

(By Shri Nagaraj C.Kolloori, Advocate)

¶12

And:

¶13

Sri.Dilleppa S/o.Sunkappa

¶14

@ Sankappa Koravar, Age 31 years,

¶15

Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Medleri,

¶16

Tq.: Ranebennur, Dist.: Haveri.

¶17

Sri.Mahadevappa S/o.Maruteppa Nagarajji, Age major, Occ: Business, R/o.: Aremallapur, Tq.: Ranebennur,

¶18

Dist.: Haveri.

¶19

… Respondents

¶20

(By Shri Prashant S.Kadadevar, Advocate for R1; Shri G.N.Narasammanavar, Advocate for R2)

¶21

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act, against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2013, passed

¶22

¶23

in MVC No.41/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur, awarding the compensation of Rs.3,51,700/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶24

In MFA Cr.Ob.No.100208/2015:

¶25

Between:

¶26

Sri.Dilleppa S/o.Sunkappa @ Sankappa Koravar, Age 31 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Medleri, Tq.: Ranebennur, Dist.: Haveri.

¶27

… Cross-objector

¶28

(By Shri Patil M.H., Advocate)

¶29

And:

¶30

Sri.Mahadevappa S/o.Maruteppa Nagarajji, Age major, Occ: Business, R/o.: Aremallapur, Tq.: Ranebennur, Dist.: Haveri.

¶31

The Divisional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., 10003-8, Opp.: RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan State.

¶32

… Respondents

¶33

(By Shri G.N.Narasammanavar, Advocate for R1; Shri Nagaraj C.Kolloori, Advocate for R2)

¶34

This MFA cross-objection in MFA No.24941/2013 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC read with Section 173(1) of M.V. Act, against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2013, passed in MVC No.41/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Member Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶35

¶36

The appeal and the cross-objection are coming on for orders, this day, the Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶37

The appeal is filed by the appellant-insurer and

¶38

the cross-objection is filed by the cross-objectorclaimant against the common judgment and award dated 30^th September 2013, passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Ranebennur (for short “the Tribunal”) in MVC No.41/2012, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,51,700/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization from respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Hence, they are clubbed together and common order has been passed.

¶39

For the purpose of convenience, the parties

¶40

would be referred to as per their ranking before the tribunal.

¶41

Brief facts of the case are that on 29.04.2011 at about 3:30 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration

¶42

¶43

No.KA-27/Q-8035 as pillion rider with his uncle. When they were proceeding on Harmada on MedleriChalageri road, a mini goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-29/4135 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the motorcycle. On account of the said accident, the petitioner fell down from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries on all over the body and sustained fracture of right femur, tibia and fibula. He was shifted to Primary Government Hospital, Ranebennur for treatment and thereafter he was shifted to City Central Hospital, Davanagere, wherein he was took treatment as an inpatient for 20 days. After recovering from injuries, he filed a claim petition before the tribunal in MVC No.41/2012.

¶44

In order to establish the case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and also examined one Dr.U.R.Ullal as PW2 and got marked 18 documents. On the other hand, the Insurance

¶45

¶46

Company has examined two witnesses and marked two documents. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,51,700/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has filed appeal and also the claimant has filed cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶47

Learned counsel for the cross-objectorclaimant contended that due to the accident the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and at the time of accident, he was aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He further submits that the tribunal while awarding compensation towards

¶48

loss of income due to permanent disability has considered the notional income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. Due

¶49

¶50

to the accident, the claimant admitted to the hospital as an inpatient for a period of 20 days and also undergone surgery, for which the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/towards food and nutritious, traveling expense and attendant charges, which is also on the lower side and seeks for enhancement. Due to the accident, the claimants has sustained comminuted fracture of shaft of 3^rd of femur bone, for which the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards injury, pain and agony, which is also on the lower side. Lastly, it is contended that he has examined the Dr.U.R.Ullal as PW2, in his deposition, it is stated that the claimants has suffered 70% total permanent and physical disability, but the tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities, which is on the lower side. Hence, the learned counsel for the cross-objector seeks for allowing the cross-objection filed by the claimants and also seeks dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶51

¶52

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for

¶53

the appellant-Insurance Company contended that it is an admitted fact that as on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing only LMV driving licence, but on that day he was driving mini goods vehicle, which is transport vehicle. Therefore, he has violated the policy conditions. Further, the tribunal has erred in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Further it is contended that though the claimants claimed that the claimant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. Therefore, the tribunal has taken the notional income of Rs.4,500/- per month to assess the compensation towards loss income due to permanent disability. Further, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities, since the Doctor has opined that there is 70% permanent physical disability, which is on the higher side. Hence, he sought for allowing the appeal filed by the

¶54

¶55

appellant-Insurance Company by dismissing the crossobjection filed by the cross-objector-claimant.

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶57

and perused the records.

¶58

It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries due to the accident, which occurred on 29.04.2011 by the driver of the mini goods vehicle, who drove the same in rash and negligent manner. Due to the accident the claimant sustained punctured wound over the lower 3^rd of the right thigh, punctured wound over the right leg, x-ray reveals that there was comminuted fracture of lower 3^rd of right femur with comminuted fracture of upper 3^rd right tibia and fibula. Further, the claimant has taken treatment as an inpatient for 20 days and the tribunal has not justified in granting compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards injury, pain and agony. In view of the injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded towards injury, pain and agony

¶59

¶60

requires to enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/and therefore, the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/towards injury, pain and agony.

¶61

Further, the claimant is claimed that he was

¶62

earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but he has not produced any documents to establish the same. In this circumstance, the tribunal has left with no option to assess the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. This Court in catena of judgments has considered income based on the chart prepared by the Lok Adalath for assessing the income for the unskilled labourers and as per the chart, the monthly income of the claimants for the year 2011 would be Rs.6,000/- and the same is taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the compensation towards loss of income due to permanent disability. Hence, the loss of income

¶63

10 -

¶64

due to permanent disability would be reassessed as under:

¶65

Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 17 x 15% = Rs.1,83,600/-

¶66

In view of enhancement of monthly income of the claimant, the compensation of Rs.9,000/- awarded towards loss of, income during laid up period would be enhanced to Rs.18,000/-. Further, the claimant took treatment as an inpatient for a period of 20 days and also undergone surgery, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards food and nutritious, traveling expenses and attendant charges requires to be enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- and the same is awrded. Due to the accident, the claimant has suffered the above stated injuries and also undergone surgery, to fortify the same he has examined the Dr.U.R.Ullal as PW2, in his deposition, it is stated that the claimant has sustained 70% total permanent physical disability throughout his life. Therefore, the compensation of

¶67

11 -

¶68

Rs.15,000/- awarded by the tribunal towards loss of amenities would be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/towards loss of amenities. Further the compensation awarded under other heads remain intact. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reassessed as under:

¶69

Towards injury, pain and agony	Rs.50,000/-
Towardsmedicalexpenses	Rs.1,50,000/-
Towards food and nutritious, travelling expenses and attendant charges`	Rs.20,000/-
Towards loss of income due to permanent disability	Rs.1,83,600/-
Towards loss of income during laid up period	Rs.18,000/-
Towardsloss ofamenities	Rs.25,000/-
TOTAL	Rs.4,46,600/-

¶70

In the appeal filed by the appellantInsurance Company, the only contention raised by learned counsel is that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid

¶71

and effective driving licence to drive the mini goods vehicle, which is transport vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex

¶72

12 -

¶73

Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 , wherein it is specifically held that the driver holding LMV lincence can drive all vehicles of class including transport vehicles and no separate endorsement required to drive such transport vehicles. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is unsustainable.

¶74

Accordingly, the appeal in MFA No.24941/2013 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is hereby dismissed and the cross-objection in MFA Cr.Ob.No.100208/2015 filed by the crossobjector-claimant is hereby allowed in part. The appellant-claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.4,46,600/instead of Rs.3,51,700/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. It is made clear that as per the order of

¶75

13 -

¶76

this Court dated 15.10.2019, the cross-objectorclaimant is not entitled to the interest for the delayed period of 662 days in filing this Cross-objection.

¶77

However, in so far as apportionment and deposit

¶78

is concerned, the same shall remain unaltered.

¶79

The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶80

The amount in deposit before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement forthwith.

¶81

SD/JUDGE

¶82

Vnp*

Dilleppa S/O Sunkappa Koravar v. Mahadevappa S/O Maruteppa Nagarajji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilleppa S/O Sunkappa Koravar v. Mahadevappa S/O Maruteppa Nagarajji

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

Bharamappa Halappa Mekkalaki, Vs Smt. Sunita a. W/O Srinivas Rao

Ravi S/O Kenchappa Wadaratti Vs Virupax S/O Hanumant Gudanaikar

Shri. Shrishail @ Shrishailappa Vs Smt. Basavva

Manjula W/O Sathyanarayana Vs the Divisional Controller

Basavaraj S/O Kotrappa Shettar @ Basavaraj Vs the Divisional Controller

Asha W/O Shravankumar Vs the Divisional Controller