Partly allowed

Sri Gangi Reddy v. P Sreenivasulu Reddy

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2020MFA/5433/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court partially allowed two miscellaneous first appeals filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimant from Rs.2,12,070 to Rs.2,91,200 and reduced the interest rate from 8% to 6% per annum.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,91,200; interest rate reduced to 6% per annum payable from the date of the claim petition till realization.

Sri Gangi Reddy Vs P Sreenivasulu Reddy — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5433 OF 2013 (MV)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5445 OF 2013 (MV)

¶9

MFA NO.5433/2013

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. GANGI REDDY S/O SRI. LATE VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.52/A, 2^ND CROSS, APPAREDDY PALYA, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU-560038. PREVIOUSLY AT NO.7, GOWDATHATHAGADDA, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT. (BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

... APPELLANT

¶13

AND:

¶14

P. SREENIVASULU REDDY S/O OBUL REDDY, MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.2-248-B-5, KURAVANKA MADANAPALLI,

¶15

¶16

CHITTOOR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-517325. (R.C. OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO AP-03-V-5535)

¶17

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY IT’S REGIONAL MANAGER, NO.25, SHANKARANARAYAN BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

(POLICY ISSUED AT MADANAPALLI BRANCH, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, A.P.)

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶21

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 02.12.2020)

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6000/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶23

MFA NO.5445/2013:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.25, SHANKARANARAYANA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560001.

¶26

¶27

NOW AT NO.18, 5^TH & 6^TH FLOORS, KRISHIBHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU. REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER SRI (BY SRI. JANARDHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶28

... APPELLANT

¶29

AND:

¶30

SRI. GANGI REDDY S/O SRI. LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO. 52/A, 2^ND CROSS, APPIREDDY PALYA, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, II^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560038.

¶31

SRI. P. SRINIVASULU REDDY S/O SRI. OBUL REDDY, MAJOR IN AGE R/AT 2-248-B-5, KURAVANKA MADANAPALLI, CHITTOR (DISTRICT)-571001. (OWNER OF THE TATA SUMO BEARING AP-03-5535)

¶32

… RESPONDENTS

¶33

(RESPONDENT NOs.1 AND 2 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶34

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 21.03.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.6000/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE 7^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT-3, BANGALORE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.2,12,070/- WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶35

¶36

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the MACT., Court of Small Causes (SCCH-3), Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MVC No.6000/2011.

¶39

Though, these appeals are listed for

¶40

admission, it is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the counsel for the parties.

¶41

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶42

The claim petition discloses that on

¶43

28.08.2011, the claimant was proceeding on a moped bearing registration No.KA-07-K-4167 towards Marimakalahalli and when he reached Battuvarihalli cross, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.AP-03-V-

¶44

¶45

5535 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the moped which was ridden by the claimant. As a result, the claimant suffered serious injuries and was shifted to Jalappa Medical Hospital and later to St.Marthas Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment. It is claimed that the claimant was doing agricultural work and also milk vending business and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. The claimant claimed that as a result of the injuries, he could not earn his livelihood and the injuries caused permanent disability. He claimed that he had spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- for his treatment and thus, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-.

¶46

The owner of the offending vehicle remained

¶47

absent, while the insurer contested the claim petition

¶48

¶49

and contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. It denied that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid licence. It however, did not dispute the fact that the offending vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance issued by it.

¶50

Based on the aforesaid contentions, the

¶51

claim petition was set down for trial. The claimant was examined as PW1 and two doctors were examined as PWs.2 and 4 and another witness was examined as PW3 and marked Exs.P1 to P181, while the insurer examined its officer as RW1 and marked Exs.R1 to R4.

¶52

The Tribunal noticed from the discharge

¶53

summary at Exs.P5 and P7 to P9 that the claimant had suffered the following injuries:

¶54

Surgical sutured multiple injury wounds present over both legs (Right and Left)

¶55

Inter trochantric fracture of the right hip femur

¶56

Fracture pubic ramus of the right pelvic bone.

¶57

¶58

The Tribunal noticed from the evidence of

¶59

PWs.2 and 4 that the claimant had suffered whole body disability at 12%. It also considered the fact that the claimant did not have any proof of income and thus assessed the notional income at a sum of Rs.5,400/and awarded the following compensation.

¶60

Heads under which compensation awarded	Amount in Rupees
Pain and Agony
1. Multiple injuries over both legs.	1,000
2. Inter trochantric fracture of right hip femur	25,000
3. Fracture of public Rami of right pelvic bone	15,000
Actual medical bills	86,000
Attendant charges (Rs.150/- per day) 150 x 64 days	9,750
Conveyance,Food and nutrition	7,000
Disability5400 x 12 x 9 x 10%	58,320
Loss of amenities	10,000
Total	2,12,070

¶61

In so far as the liability to pay the compensation is concerned, though the insurer contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was

¶62

¶63

licenced to drive a light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle, the Tribunal held that in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Angad Kol and others reported in 2009 ACJ 1411, the driver was authorized to drive a transport vehicle, subject to its unladen weight not exceeding 7500 Kgs and thus, fastened the liability on the insurer to pay the compensation.

¶64

Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant filed MFA No.5433/2013 and the insurer filed MFA No.5445/2013 disputing its liability as well as the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal.

¶65

In so far as the appeal filed by the claimant is concerned, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the claimant at a sum of Rs.5,400/- per month. As rightly contended by the learned counsel, the Tribunal ought to have considered the notional income at a sum of Rs.6,500/- per month as is done by

¶66

¶67

this Court in the cases referred to Lok Adalath for settlement.

¶68

In addition, the Tribunal did not award the compensation towards ‘ loss of income during the laid up period’ and also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards 'loss of amenities' which deserves to be enhanced, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the consequent disability. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be re-considered and re-calculated which is as follows:

¶69

Heads under which compensation awarded	Amount in Rupees
Pain and suffering	40,000
Reimbursement of medical expenses	86,000
Attendant charges(Rs.150x3 months)	13,500
Conveyance,food and nourishment	7,000
Loss of income due to disability (Rs.6,500x12x9x10%)	70,200
Future medical expenses	15,000
Loss of income during the laid up period(Rs.6,500x3 months)	19,500
Loss of amenities	40,000
Total	2,91,200

¶70

¶71

In view of the above, the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is allowed in part and the impugned Judgment and Award of the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to a sum of Rs.2,91,200/- as against a sum of Rs.2,12,070/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶72

In so far as the appeal filed by the insurer

¶73

challenging its liability is concerned, on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, this question is now well settled by the Judgment of the Apex Court

¶74

in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd. reported in 2017(14) SCC 663 . Therefore, the insurer cannot escape its liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the insurer, the Tribunal could not have awarded the interest at the rate of 8% on the compensation awarded. Hence, the appeal filed by the insurer is allowed in part and the

¶75

¶76

interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 8% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum.

¶77

In view of the above, both the appeals are

¶78

allowed in part . The compensation payable by the insurer as awarded by the Tribunal in MVC No.6000/2011 is enhanced from Rs.2,12,070/- to Rs.2,91,200/- which is payable by the insurer to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition, till the date of realization.

¶79

The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount as ordered by this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

¶80

The amount in deposit by the insurer shall

¶81

be transferred to the Tribunal for necessary orders.

¶82

Sd/- JUDGE

¶83

Sri Gangi Reddy v. P Sreenivasulu Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gangi Reddy v. P Sreenivasulu Reddy

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

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Inayathulla

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Inayathulla

Smt. R. Suchitra Vs R.T. Shivu

Ms Farah Oomerbhoy Vs Niki Lawyer

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Gangi Reddy

Sri Ehwarachari Vs Smt Sarojamma