Partly allowed

Husanappa S/O Amruth v. Hirasingh S/O Dattu Singh Thakur and Ors.

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2022MFA/201202/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compensation for a child's death and passenger injuries was enhanced. The court assigned 75% liability to the lorry's insurer and 25% to the mini goods vehicle side. For that share, its insurer must pay and recover for the first seven claims; its owner must pay the remaining three. Appeals were partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced with 6% interest; liability apportioned 75:25, with pay-and-recover for the first seven claims against the mini goods vehicle's insurer; deposit directed within six weeks.

Husanappa S/O Amruth Vs Hirasingh S/O Dattu Singh Thakur and Ors. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

MFA NO.201202/2017 (MV-I) C/W

¶6

MFA NOS.201201/2017, 201203/2017,201204/2017,201205/2017 201206/2017,201207/2017,201208/2017, 201209/2017 & 201210/2017

¶7

IN MFA NO.201202 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HUSANAPPA S/O AMRUTH AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR R/O: HIPPARAGI (SN) TQ: JEWARGI DIST : GULBARGA - 585 101

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

HIRASINGH S/O DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI, TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 102.

¶14

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 41

¶15

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS

¶16

¶17

45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 500 003

¶18

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 002

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶21

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.7,19,000/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.44/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶23

IN MFA NOS.201201/2017

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

PARVATI @ MANJULA W/O VITHAL, AND ANR AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOUR AND HOUSEHOLD,

¶26

VITHAL, S/O PARSHURAM AGE: 29 YEARS. OCC: AGRICULTURAL LABOUR BOTH ARE R/A HUVINAHALLI TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA – 585 102

¶27

… APPELLANTS

¶28

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶29

¶30

AND:

¶31

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 102.

¶32

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 001

¶33

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE

¶34

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER)

¶35

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 002

¶36

… RESPONDENTS

¶37

(NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶38

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.7,75,000/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.45/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶40

¶41

IN MFA NO. 201203/2017

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

SHARANAPPA S/O UDANDAPPA TELKAR AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE NOW NIL R/O HUVINHALLI, TQ: AFZALPURA DSIT: KALABURAGI – 585 101

¶44

… APPELLANT

¶45

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 101.

¶48

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 102

¶49

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER)

¶50

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 223

¶51

… RESPONDENTS (NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.46/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶56

IN MFA NO,201204/2017

¶57

BETWEEN:

¶58

SHARANAPPA S/O UDANDAPPA TELKAR AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE NOW NIL R/O HUVINHALLI, TQ: AFZALPURA DSIT: KALABURAGI – 585 101

¶59

… APPELLANT

¶60

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶61

AND:

¶62

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI, TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 101.

¶63

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 102

¶64

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER)

¶65

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 223

¶66

… RESPONDENTS (NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶67

¶68

¶69

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.7,75,000/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.47/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶70

IN MFA NO.201205/2017

¶71

BETWEEN:

¶72

TARABAI @ TULASABAI W/O PEERAPPA, AGE: 64 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE NOW NIL R/O KOTNOOR, TQ: JEWARGI DIST: GULBARGA – 585 101

¶73

… APPELLANT

¶74

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶75

AND:

¶76

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 101.

¶77

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 102

¶78

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER)

¶79

¶80

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE

¶81

CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 223

¶82

… RESPONDENTS (NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶83

¶84

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.8,94,500/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.48/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶85

IN MFA 201206/2017

¶86

BETWEEN:

¶87

VITHAL, S/O PARSHURAM AGE: 29 YEARS. OCC: AGRICULTURE NOW NIL NOW R/A HUVINAHALLI TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA – 585 102

¶88

… APPELLANT

¶89

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶90

AND:

¶91

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 101.

¶92

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 102

¶93

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE

¶94

¶95

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER)

¶96

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 223

¶97

… RESPONDENTS (NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶98

¶99

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.7,75,000/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.49/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶100

IN MFA 201207/2017

¶101

BETWEEN:

¶102

CHANDRAKALA W/O TIPPANNA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE MOW NIL R/A HUVINAHALLI

¶103

TQ: AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA – 585 102

¶104

… APPELLANT

¶105

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶106

AND:

¶107

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 101.

¶108

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA

¶109

¶110

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 102

¶111

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER)

¶112

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 223

¶113

… RESPONDENTS

¶114

(NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶115

¶116

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.7,75,000/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.50/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶117

IN MFA 201208/2017

¶118

BETWEEN:

¶119

PARASHURAM S/O UDANDAPPA TELKAR AGE:54 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE NOW NIL R/O HUVINHALLI, TQ.AFZALPUR DIST.GULBARGA – 585 101 … APPELLANT

¶120

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶121

¶122

AND:

¶123

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 101. 2. RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 102 3. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER) 4. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 223 … RESPONDENTS (NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4) ***

¶124

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.9,75,000/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.51/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

IN MFA 201209/2017

BETWEEN:

PARVATI @ MANJULA W/O VITHAL TELKAR, AGE: 29 YEARS OCCU: AGRICULTURE NOW NIL R/O HUVINHALLI, TQ.AFZALPUR, DIST: GULBARGA – 585 101

¶129

… APPELLANT

¶130

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶131

AND:

¶132

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH THAKUR, AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI, TQ : AFZALPURA, DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 101.

¶133

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 102

¶134

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS, 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER)

¶135

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 223 … RESPONDENTS

¶136

(NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN

¶137

¶138

M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶139

¶140

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.8,16,000/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.52/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶141

IN MFA 201210/2017

¶142

BETWEEN:

¶143

MAINA BAI @ PARVATI W/O HAVAPPA AGE:39 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE LABOUR NOW NIL, R/O HIPPARAGI (SN), TQ.JEWARGI, DIST.GULBARGA – 585 102

¶144

… APPELLANT

¶145

(By SRI SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶146

AND:

¶147

HIRASINGH S/O.DATTU SINGH AGE:48 YRS, OCC:BUSINESS R/AT: HUVINHALLI TQ : AFZALPURA , DIST.KALBURAGI – 585 101.

¶148

¶149

RUDRAGOUDA S/O KALLANNA GOUDA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O NO.20, KSSIDC 1^ST PHASE NEAR MASAPTI DARGA KAPNOOR, GULBARGA – 585 102 3. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD CHENNAI – 510 003 (REP.BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER) 4. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, E-8, EPIP, RIICO SITAPUR JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN – 320 223 … RESPONDENTS

¶150

(NOTICE SERVED TO R-1; NOTICE TO R-2 ARE DISPENSED WITH V.O.D 24.07.2017; BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; & SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4)

¶151

¶152

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF RS.9,75,000/- (EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL) ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT KALABURAGI DATED 08.05.2017 IN MVC NO.53/2013, BY FIXING THE ENTIRE LIABILITY OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.3, INSTEAD OF FIXING 50% OF PAYING COMPENSATION ON RESPONDENT NO.2 & ETC.

¶153

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

¶154

¶155

JUDGMENT

¶156

These appeals are preferred by the claimants aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 08.05.2017, passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for brevity) in MVC Nos.44 to 53 of 2013. These appeals are premised on the ground of inadequate and meager compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶157

Though these matters are listed for Admission, with consent of the learned counsel, matter are taken up for final disposal.

¶158

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

¶159

Brief facts of the case are as under :

¶160

On 31.05.2012 the deceased Kailash and claimants

¶161

were proceeding in Mini Gods Vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-32 / B-3587, and when the said mini goods vehicle was proceeding at about 6.00am on the next day, ie., on 01.06.2012 near Old Takkalki Cross on Hubli – Bijapur,

¶162

¶163

NH-218 Road, the said mini goods vehicle dashed to a parked lorry bearing Registration No.MH-25/B-9015, since the driver could not see the parked lorry due to dazzling light of the oncoming vehicle from opposite direction.

¶164

Due to the said impact, one Kailash sustained injuries over his head and other parts of the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The other nine (9) claimants sustained grievous injuries.

¶165

The Claimants in MFA NO.201201 OF 2017 -

¶166

MVC No.45/2013, are the parents of the deceased Kailash, minor child, aged about one year, who was the only son and he was their future hope and due to his untimely death, they have been put to great loss, he was looking after their needs at their old age and they have lost, his love and affection due to death of their son deceased Kailash.

¶167

The claimant in MFA NO.201202 OF 2017 - MVC No.44/2013 had sustained fracture of medial mallelous of left ankle and other parts of his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital,

¶168

¶169

Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and still he is under treatment. In view of the occurrence of accident, the claimant has expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 40 years and doing coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the said accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in a position to do his work as he was doing prior to the accident and he is unable to get back to work. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶170

The claimant in MFA NO.201203 OF 2017 MVC No.46/2013 had sustained grievous injuries over the right shoulder, lower back and other parts of his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and still he is under treatment. In view of the occurrence of accident, the claimant has expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to

¶171

¶172

occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 65 years and doing coolie work. Due to the said accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in position to do his work as he was doing prior to the accident and he is unable to get back to work. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶173

The claimant in MFA NO.201204 OF 2017 -

¶174

MVC No.47/2013 had sustained grievous injuries over the head, both hands and legs and other parts of her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and still she is under treatment. In view of the occurrence of accident, the claimant has expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 60 years and doing coolie work. Due to the said accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in a position to do his work as she was doing prior to the accident and she is unable to get back

¶175

¶176

to work. Hence, she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶177

The claimant in MFA NO.201205 OF 2017 - MVC No.48/2013 had sustained fracture of both bones of right forearm, grievous injuries on head, temporal region and other parts of her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot wherein she was inpatient from 01.06.2012 to 07.06.2012 and still she is under treatment. In view of the occurrence of accident, the claimant has expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 60 years and doing coolie work and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to the said accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in a position to do her work as she was doing prior to the accident and she is unable to get back to work. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶178

¶179

The claimant in MFA NO.201206 of 2017 - MVC No.49/2013 had sustained grievous injuries over the mid back area, posterior area, occipital area of scalp, head and other parts of his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and still he is under treatment. In view of occurrence of accident, the claimant expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 25 years and doing coolie work. Due to the said accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in a position to do his work as he was doing prior to the accident and he is unable to get back to work. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶180

The claimant in MFA NO.201207 of 2017 - MVC No.50/2013 sustained grievous injuries over the head, abdomen and other parts of her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and still she is under

¶181

¶182

treatment. In view of occurrence of accident, the claimant has expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 28 years and doing coolie work. Due to the said accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in a position to do her work as she was doing prior to the accident and she is unable to get back to work. Hence, she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶183

13. The claimant in MFA NO.201208 OF 2017 -

¶184

MVC No.51/2013 had sustained grievous injuries over the spinal cord and other parts of his body. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and still he is under treatment. In view of the occurrence of accident, the claimant expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 50 years and doing coolie work. Due to the said accident

¶185

¶186

and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in a position to do his work as he was doing prior to the accident and he is unable to get back to work. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶187

The claimant in MFA NO.201209 of 2017 - MVC No.52/2013 sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm, intra-articular fracture of 1/3^rd radius left and other parts of her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and still she is under treatment from 01.06.2012 to 07.06.2012. In view of occurrence of accident, the claimant has expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 25 years and doing coolie work. Due to the said accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in position to do her work as she was doing prior to the accident and she is unable to get back to work. Hence, she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶188

¶189

The claimant in MFA NO.201210 of 2017 - MVC No.53/2013 had sustained grievous injuries over the chest, back and head and other parts of her body. Immediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Bilagi and thereafter to Katti Hospital, Bagalkot and still she is under treatment. In view of occurrence of accident, the claimant has expended huge amount towards medical expenses and incidental expenses and has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. It is stated that prior to occurrence of accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, aged about 35 years and doing coolie work. Due to the said accident and injuries suffered, the claimant is not in a position to do her work as she was doing prior to the accident and she is unable to get back to work. Hence, she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

¶190

On service of notice to respondents, respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained absent and were placed exparte. Respondent No.3 – Insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.MH-25 B-9015 and respondent No.4 –

¶191

¶192

Insurer of Mini Goods Vehicle appeared and filed their detailed statement of objections.

¶193

Respondent No.3 – Insurer of the Lorry bearing Registration No.MH-25 B-9015, contended that the claim made by the claimants in the claim petitions are exorbitant and denied the age, avocation and income including the injuries as alleged in the claim petitions. It further pleaded that respondent No.1 had committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the Policy and driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It also denied that the injuries sustained by the claimants were due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Hence, the respondent No.3 – Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and sought for dismissal of claim petition.

¶194

Respondent No.4 – Insurer of the Mini Goods Vehicle, contended that the claim made by the claimants in the claim petitions are exorbitant and denied the age, avocation and income including the injuries as alleged in the claim petitions. It is further pleaded that respondent No.2 had committed breach of terms and conditions of the

¶195

¶196

Policy and driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. It also denied that the injuries sustained by the claimants were due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini Goods Vehicle. Hence, respondent No.4 – Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and sought for dismissal of claim petition.

¶197

On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration.

¶198

In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the claimants got examined themselves as PWs1 to 50 and doctor as PW12 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P10, whereas respondent No.3 & 4 – Insurance Company got examined their Officers as RW1 & 2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R3.

¶199

On the basis of material evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petitions as against respondent No.4 – Insurance Company of the Mini Goods Vehicle, awarded compensation as detailed below:

¶200

¶201

MVC NO.45/2013 Rs.2,25,000/-; 2. MVC NO.44/2013 Rs. 81,000/-; 3. MVC NO.46/2013 Rs. 25,000/-; 4. MVC NO.47/2013 Rs. 25,000/-; 5. MVC NO.48/2013 Rs.1,05,500/-; 6. MVC NO.49/2013 Rs. 25,000/-; 7. MVC NO.50/2013 Rs. 25,000/-; 8. MVC NO.51/2013 Rs. 25,000/-; 9. MVC NO.52/2013 Rs.1,84,000/-; 10. MVC NO.53/2013 Rs. 80,000/-.

¶202

alongwith interest @ 6%pa from the date of petition till its realisation. The Tribunal fastened liability equally on respondent No.1 – Owner and respondent No.3 – Insurer of the lorry at 50% and remaining 50% on respondent No.2 – Owner of the Mini Goods Vehicle and directed them to deposit the award amount.

¶203

Being aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶204

It is vehement contention of the learned Counsel for claimants that the Tribunal has committed an

¶205

¶206

error in awarding compensation and has not taken into consideration the material evidence both oral and documentary thereby causing miscarriage of justice to the claimants.

¶207

He further contends that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the avocation of the claimants that they are earning by doing coolie work and has assessed meager amount as income thereby committing an error in not awarding just and reasonable compensation. He further contends that even under the other heads, the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable compensation commensurate to the injuries sustained by the claimants. On the basis of these submissions, he seeks to allow the appeals and to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶208

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4-Insurance Company vehemently contends that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with material evidence both oral and documentary and same does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. They further contend that the

¶209

¶210

Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation based on the injuries sustained by the claimant and interference by this Court is not warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case. On the basis of these submissions, they seek to dismiss the appeals as same do not merit consideration.

¶211

Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel representing respondent Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited and Srirama General Insurance Company Limited, the points that would arise for consideration before this Court are:

¶212

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

¶213

ii) What order ?

¶214

Having perused the entire material evidence both oral and documentary and the impugned judgment and award, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding meager compensation thereby point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the claimants. Therefore, the claimants

¶215

¶216

would be entitled for marginal indulgence of enhancement of compensation.

¶217

It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on the early hours of 01.06.2012 at 6.00 am when all the claimants were traveling in the Mini Goods Vehicle and it dashed against the lorry which was parked on the road. The involvement of the vehicle, occurrence of accident, injuries having been sustained by the claimants, are all not disputed. It is also not disputed that a criminal case came to be registered in Cr. No.107/2012 against the driver of Mini Goods Vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A, 337, 338 of IPC and Section 187 MV Act and the driver of the lorry for the offences punishable under Sections 287 IPC and 187 of MV Act.

¶218

In order to substantiate this aspect and to prove the same, the claimant has produced the documents as Exs.P1 to P9, which are the police records wherein the driver of the mini Goods vehicle has been charged with criminal offence as stated above. There is no dispute that

¶219

the charge-sheet has been laid against both the mini Goods vehicle and the Lorry for the afore-stated offences.

¶220

¶221

There is no challenge made to the laying of charge-sheet by the driver of Mini Goods vehicle or the lorry or its owner. It is also not the case of respondent-Insurance Company that the said initiation of criminal proceedings both the mini goods vehicle and lorry is fictitious and concocted, so also, no contra material has been placed before the tribunal or before this Court to prove the same as invalid or not being genuine. In the absence of such material before the Court and there being no challenge to the charge-sheet by the driver of mini Goods vehicle and lorry, the negligence is rightly attributed against the driver of the two offending vehicle by the tribunal.

¶222

IN MFA NO.201201 OF 2017 - MVC NO.45/2013

¶223

Coming to the claimants in this case, who are parents of the deceased Kailash, aged about one year that they have claimed compensation towards loss of future earnings, loss of amenities and loss of estate. The Tribunal taking notional income of the minor at Rs.15,000/- per annum and applying multiplier of 15 has awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000/-. In view of the fact that the deceased Kailash was minor. I deem it appropriate to enhance the

¶224

¶225

income of the minor deceased Kailash to Rs.25,000/towards loss of future earnings as against Rs.15,000/awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier at '15'. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- (Rs.25,000/- X 15). Further, the claimants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.55,000/- under the head loss of consortium, under which the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. In all, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,30,000/- as against a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶226

IN MFA NO.201202 OF 2017 - MVC NO.44/2013

¶227

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of claimant, no doubt the claimant has averred that he was a coolie and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has disbelieved the said fact and taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶228

The accident having occurred in the year 2012. As per the notional income chart prescribed by the Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2013

¶229

¶230

a sum of Rs.6,500/- is required to be taken as income. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to calculate the loss of future income of the claimant by taking his income at Rs.6,500/- per month.

¶231

In the present case on hand, PW2 has been examined by the claimant, who is doctor, has given disability certificate at Ex.P11 and assessed the permanent physical impairment at 12% to upper limb and also to the whole body. This fact has been considered by the Tribunal and has taken disability to whole body at 5%, which is based on the documents produced and also as per the evidence of the doctor. Hence, it needs no interference by this Court and same is retained.

¶232

Therefore, in view of the disability having been assessed at 5%, claimant was aged 40 years at the time of accident in the year 2012 and the proper multiplier applicable is '15', which the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration and applied to award compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.58,500/- (Rs.6,500 X 12 X 15 X 5%) under the head loss of future earning capacity due to the

¶233

¶234

disability suffered by the claimant in the road traffic accident.

¶235

The other grievance of the learned Counsel for claimant is that the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable amount of compensation under loss of income during laid up period. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. This Court having already assessed the income to be Rs.6,500/- and claimant has suffered fracture and other grievous injuries, three months period would be required for him to recuperate and get back to day to his day normal life. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500x3) under this head.

¶236

Towards pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, towards medical expenses Rs.3,300/- based on the actual bills produced, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity committed by the Tribunal in awarding just and reasonable compensation under these heads. Hence, the same are retained.

¶237

¶238

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities and towards future medical expenses. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶239

In view of the above discussions, claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1 ,31,300=00 as against Rs.81,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, morefully mentioned in the table below:

¶240

SL. NO.	HEAD	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
01.	PAIN AND SUFFERING	25,000=00
02.	MEDICAL EXPENSES	3,300=00
03.	FOR LOSS OF EARNING DURING THE TREATMENT PERIOD FOR THREE MONTHS AT THE RATE OF Rs.6,500/-PER MONTH	19,500=00
04.	FOR LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS (Rs.6,500/- X12X15X5%)	58,500=00
05.	FOR LOSS OF AMENTIES	25,000=00
	TOTAL	1,31,300=00

¶241

IN MFA NO.201205 OF 2017 - MVC NO.48/2013

¶242

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of claimant, no doubt the claimant has averred that she was a coolie and earning a sum of

¶243

¶244

Rs.8,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has disbelieved the said fact and taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶245

The accident having occurred in the year 2012. As per the notional income chart prescribed by the Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2013, a sum of Rs.6,500/- is required to be taken as income. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to calculate the loss of future income of the claimant by taking his income at Rs.6,500/- per month.

¶246

In the present case on hand, PW2 has been examined by the claimant, who is doctor, has given disability certificate at Ex.P18 and assessed the permanent physical impairment at 18% to upper limb and also to the whole body. This fact has been considered by the Tribunal and has taken disability to whole body at 8%, which is based on the documents produced and also as per the evidence of the doctor. Hence, it needs no interference by this Court and it is retained.

¶247

¶248

Therefore, in view of the disability having been assessed at 8%, claimant was aged 60 years at the time of accident in the year 2012 the proper multiplier applicable is '9', which the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration and awarded compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.56,160/- (Rs.6,500 X 12 X 9 X 8%) under the head loss of future earning capacity due to the disability suffered by the claimant in the road traffic accident.

¶249

The other grievance of the learned Counsel for claimant is that the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable amount of compensation under head loss of income during laid up period. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. This Court having already assessed the income to be Rs.6,500/- and claimant has suffered fracture and other grievous injuries, therefore, three months period would be required for him to recuperate and get back to her day to day normal life. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,500/(Rs.6,500x3) under this head.

¶250

¶251

Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, towards medical expenses Rs.34,400/- based on the actual bills produced, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity committed by the Tribunal in awarding the just and reasonable compensation under these heads. Hence, the same are retained.

¶252

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶253

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,350/towards attendant, conveyance and nutrition of food charges, which is on the lower side. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- under this head.

¶254

In view of the above discussions, claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1 ,65,100=00 as against Rs.1,05,462/- awarded by the Tribunal, morefully mentioned in the table below:

¶255

¶256

SL. NO.	HEAD	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
01.	PAIN AND SUFFERING	25,000=00
02.	MEDICAL EXPENSES	34,400=00
03.	FOR LOSS OF EARNING DURING THE TREATMENT PERIOD FOR THREE MONTHS AT THE RATE OF Rs.6,500/-PER MONTH	19,500=00
04.	FOR LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS (Rs.6,500/- X12X15X5%)	56,160=00
05.	FOR LOSS OF AMENTIES	25,000=00
06.	FOR ATTENDANT, CONVEYNACE AND NUTRITION OF FFOD CHARGES	5,000=00
	TOTAL	1,65,060=00
	ROUNDED OFF TO	1,65,100=00

¶257

IN MFA NO.201209 OF 2017 - MVC NO.52/2013

¶258

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of claimant, no doubt the claimant has averred that she was a coolie and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has disbelieved the said fact and taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶259

The accident having occurred in the year 2012. As per the notional income chart prescribed by the Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2013,

¶260

¶261

a sum of Rs.6,500/- is required to be taken as income. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to calculate the loss of future income of the claimant by taking her income at Rs.6,500/- per month.

¶262

In the present case on hand, PW2 has been examined by the claimant, who is doctor, has given disability certificate at Ex.P40 and assessed the permanent physical impairment at 17% to upper limb and also to the whole body. This fact has been considered by the Tribunal and has taken disability to whole body at 8%, which is based on the documents produced and also as per the evidence of the doctor. Hence, it needs no interference by this Court and it is retained.

¶263

Therefore, in view of the disability having been assessed at 8%, and claimant was aged 25 years at the time of accident in the year 2012 the proper multiplier applicable is '18', which the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration and awarded compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,12,320/- (Rs.6,500 X 12 X 18 X 8%) under the

¶264

¶265

head loss of future earning capacity due to the disability suffered by the claimant in the road traffic accident.

¶266

The other grievance of the learned Counsel for claimant is that the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable amount of compensation under loss of income during laid up period. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. This Court having already assessed the income to be Rs.6,500/- and claimant having suffered fracture and other grievous injuries, three months period would be required for him to recuperation and get back to her day to day normal life. Accordingly the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500x3) under this head.

¶267

Towards pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, towards medical expenses, Rs.41,000/based on the actual bills produced, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity committed by the Tribunal in awarding the just and reasonable compensation under these heads. Hence, the same are retained.

¶268

¶269

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injuries, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶270

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,200/towards attendant, conveyance and nutrition of food charges, which is on the lower side. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- under this head.

¶271

In view of the above discussions, claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2 ,33,000=00 as against Rs.1,83,840/- awarded by the Tribunal, morefully mentioned in the table below:

¶272

SL. NO.	HEAD	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
01.	PAIN AND SUFFERING	25,000=00
02.	MEDICAL EXPENSES	41,000=00
03.	FOR LOSS OF EARNING DURING THE TREATMENT PERIOD FOR THREE MONTHS AT THE RATE OF Rs.6,500/-PER MONTH	19,500=00
04.	FOR LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS (Rs.6,500/- X12X15X5%)	1,12,320=00
05.	FOR LOSS OF AMENTIES	25,000=00

¶273

¶274

06.	FOR ATTENDANT,	10,000=00
	CONVEYNACE AND
	NUTRITION OF FFOD CHARGES
	TOTAL	2,32,820=00
	ROUNDED OFF TO	2,33,000=00

¶275

IN MFA NO.201210 OF 2017 - MVC NO.53/2013

¶276

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of claimant, no doubt the claimant has averred that she was a coolie and earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. But the Tribunal has disbelieved the said fact and taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month.

¶277

The accident having occurred in the year 2012. As per the notional income chart prescribed by the Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2013 a sum of Rs.6,500/- is required to be taken as income. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to calculate the loss of future income of the claimant by taking her income at Rs.6,500/- per month.

¶278

In the present case on hand, PW2 has been examined by the claimant, who is doctor, has given

¶279

¶280

disability certificate at Ex.P46 and assessed the permanent physical impairment at 10% to upper limb and also to the whole body. This fact has been considered by the Tribunal and has taken disability to whole body at 4%, which is based on the documents produced and also as per the evidence of the doctor. Hence, it needs no interference by this Court and it is retained.

¶281

Therefore, in view of disability having been assessed at 8%, and claimant was aged 35 years at the time of accident in the year 2012, the proper multiplier applicable is '16', which the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration and awarded compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.49,920/- (Rs.6,500 X 12 X 16 X 4%) under the head loss of future earning capacity due to the disability suffered by the claimant in the road traffic accident.

¶282

The other grievance of the learned Counsel for claimant is that the Tribunal has not awarded reasonable amount of compensation under loss of income during laid up period. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. This Court having already assessed the

¶283

¶284

income to be Rs.6,500/- and claimant having suffered fracture and other grievous injuries, three months period would be required for him to recuperate and get back to her day to day normal life. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.19,500/- (Rs.6,500x3) under this head.

¶285

Towards pain and suffering the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/-, towards medical expenses Rs.34,400/- based on the actual bills produced, I do not find any error, illegality or perversity committed by the Tribunal in awarding the just and reasonable compensation under these heads. Hence, the same are retained.

¶286

The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head loss of amenities. Since the claimant has to suffered grievous injuries, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.

¶287

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,350/towards attendant, conveyance and nutrition of food charges, which is on the lower side. Therefore, I deem it

¶288

¶289

appropriate to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- under this head.

¶290

In view of the above discussions, claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1 ,24,500=00 as against Rs.1,05,462/- awarded by the Tribunal, morefully

¶291

mentioned in the table below:

¶292

SL. NO.	HEAD	AMOUNT (in Rs.)
01.	PAIN AND SUFFERING	25,000=00
02.	MEDICAL EXPENSES	3,000=00
03.	FOR LOSS OF EARNING DURING THE TREATMENT PERIOD FOR THREE MONTHS AT THE RATE OF Rs.6,500/-PER MONTH	19,500=00
04.	FOR LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS (Rs.6,500/- X12X15X5%)	49,920=00
05.	FOR LOSS OF AMENTIES	25,000=00
06.	FOR ATTENDANT, CONVEYNACE AND NUTRITION OF FFOD CHARGES	2,000=00
	TOTAL	1,24,420=00
	ROUNDED OFF TO	1,24,500=00

¶293

IN MFA NO.201203 OF 2017 - MVC NO.46/2013; IN MFA NO.201204 OF 2017 - MVC NO.47/2013; IN MFA NO.201206 OF 2017 - MVC NO.49/2013; IN MFA NO.201207 OF 2017 - MVC NO.50/2013; & IN MFA NO.201208 OF 2017 - MVC NO.51/2013

¶294

¶295

Now coming to the aspect of age, avocation and income of claimants in all these cases, no doubt the claimants have averred that they were coolies. But the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- in each of the claim petition as global compensation with interest @6%pa from the date of petition till its realisation.

¶296

The accident having occurred in the year 2012. Admittedly, no evidence is placed on record. But the fact remains that the claimants have sustained grievous injuries and to prove the same, they have examined doctor as PW2 and also they have produced medical bills to show that they have taken treatment for the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident.

¶297

Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the Tribunal in a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Each of the claimants in all these claim petitions are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶298

¶299

After considering the material evidence, Tribunal has awarded different compensation to each of the claimants and fastened liability against the Owner of the respondent No.3 - Mini Goods Vehicle as well as respondent No.1 – Owner and respondent No.3 – Insurer of the lorry involved in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal fastened liability jointly and severally 50% on the owner of the Mini Goods Vehicle and 50% liability against the owner and Insurer of the lorry, as there is equal fault by both the drivers and directed them to pay the compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as against respondent No.4 – Insurance Company of the Mini Goods Vehicle.

¶300

It is seen that for Mini Goods Vehicle, as per Ex.R1 – Insurance Policy the seating capacity of persons is 2+1, whereas 10 persons are traveling. As per Section 100 of MV Rules 1984, in the goods transport vehicle and lorry up to seven persons are allowed. Therefore, there shall be joint liability on the Owner of the lorry – respondent No.1 and its Insurer – respondent No.3 on the one part and also Owner of Mini Goods Vehicle –

¶301

¶302

respondent No.2 and Insurer of Mini Goods Vehicle – respondent No.4 on the other.

¶303

Now, coming to the question of liability, it is seen that admittedly, lorry was parked in the middle of the road. Even according to the charge sheet at Ex.P4 and sketch at Ex.P9, which has been produced by the claimants to the effect that the lorry was parked in the middle of the road. Therefore, heavy vehicle i.e., lorry having parked in the middle of the road, there is violation

¶304

of Rule 15(2) of Regulations 1989, which reads as under:

¶305

"SECTION 15(2) IN THE RULES OF THE ROAD REGULATIONS, 1989

¶306

(2) A driver of a motor vehicle shall not park his vehicle:—

¶307

(i) at or near a road crossing, a bend, top of a hill or a humpbacked bridge;

¶308

(ii) on a foot-path;

¶309

(iii) near a traffic light or pedestrian crossing;

¶310

(iv) in a main road or one carrying fast traffic;

¶311

(v) opposite another parked vehicle or as obstruction to other vehicle;

¶312

(vi) alongside another parked vehicle;

¶313

¶314

(vii) on roads or at places or roads where there is a continuous white line with or without a broken line;

¶315

(viii) near a bus stop, school or hospital entrance or blocking a traffic sign or entrance to a premises or a fire hydrant;

¶316

(ix) on the wrong side of the road;

¶317

(x) where parking is prohibited;

¶318

(xi) away from the edge of the footpath."

¶319

There is clear bar in parking of heavy vehicles on the road

¶320

and more so, on the busy road like State Highway and National Highway, the parking of the vehicles shall be made in a definite area stipulated for parking only. Therefore, parking of lorry on the middle of the National Highway leading to Hubli – Bijapur, is unauthorized and illegal.

¶321

Therefore, larger liability has to be fastened on

¶322

the Owner and Insurer of lorry jointly and severally, which is to the extent of 75% and in view of charge sheet having been filed against the driver of Mini Goods Vehicle, the Owner and Insurer of the said Mini Goods Vehicle are

¶323

¶324

jointly and severally liable to pay remaining 25% of the total compensation.

¶325

In view of the above, respondent No.3 - Insurance Company, who is Insurer of the offending vehicle – lorry bearing Registration No.MH-25 B-9015, shall pay entire 75% of the total compensation amount to the claimants. Further, respondent No.4 - Insurance Company, who is Insurer of the offending vehicle – Mini Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-32 B-3587, shall pay entire 25% of the total compensation amount to the claimants.

¶326

In view of seating capacity as per Rule 100 of

¶327

MV Rules is very clear that first seven (7) persons in the claim petition as per their seniority are entitled to recover the money through Insurance Company as per pay and recovery Policy. Accordingly, the Owner of the Mini Goods Vehicle and its Insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay for the first seven persons. In other words, the Insurer of the Mini Goods Vehicle shall pay entire compensation amount to first seven (7) persons and is at liberty to recover the same from the Owner of the Mini

¶328

¶329

Goods Vehicle. With respect to remaining three persons, they shall be entitled to compensation at the hands of the Owner of the Mini Goods Vehicle for having violated the terms and conditions of the Policy.

¶330

Out of the 25% compensation saddled against the Insurance Company of the Mini Goods Vehicle – respondent No.4, for the first seven (7) claimants respondent No.4 – Insurance Company shall pay the compensation amount and would be at liberty to recover the same from the Owner of Mini Goods Vehicle – respondent No.2. For the remaining three (3) claimants thereafter, the Owner of Mini Goods Vehicle – respondent No.2 shall pay the compensation from out of the 25% as stated above.

¶331

76. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶332

ORDER

¶333

i) The appeals are allowed-in-part;

¶334

ii) The judgment and award dated 08.05.2017, passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and

¶335

¶336

MACT, Kalaburagi in MVC No.44 to 53 of 2013, is modified;

¶337

iii) The claimants in MFA No.201201/2017 – MVC No.45/2013 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4 ,30,000=00 as against Rs.2,25,000/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶338

iv) The claimant in MFA No.201202/2017 – MVC No.44/2013 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1 ,31,300=00 as against Rs.2,25,000/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶339

v) The claimant in MFA No.201205/2017 – MVC No.48/2013 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1 ,65,100=00 as against Rs.1,05,462/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶340

vi) The claimant in MFA No.201209/2017 – MVC No.52/2013 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2 ,33,000=00 as

¶341

¶342

against Rs.1,83,840/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶343

vii) The claimant in MFA No.201210/2017 – MVC No.53/2013 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1 ,24,500=00 as against Rs.1,05,462/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶344

viii) The claimants in MFA No.201203/2017 – MVC No.46/2013; MFA No.201204/2017 – MVC No.47/2013; MFA No.201206/2017 – MVC No.49/2013; MFA No.201207/2017 – MVC No.50/2013 and MFA No.201208/2017 – MVC No.51/2013 are entitled for total compensation in a sum of Rs.50 ,000=00 as against Rs.25,000/awarded by the Tribunal;

¶345

ix) Respondent No.3-Insurer of lorry is directed to pay 75% to all the claimants and respondent No.4 – Insurer of the Mini Goods Vehicle is directed to pay 25% of the total

¶346

¶347

compensation amount to the first seven (7) claimants in MVC Nos.44 to 50 of 2013 and remaining three (3) claimants in MVC Nos.51 to 53 of 2013 shall be paid by the Owner of the Mini Goods Vehicle – respondent No.2, claimants with interest at the rate of @6%pa from the date of petition till its realisation, within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment;

¶348

x) The entire amount shall be released in favour of the respective claimants upon proper identification.;

¶349

xi) The statutory amount in deposit before this Court, if any, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal along with trial Court records.

¶350

Sd/JUDGE

¶351

Husanappa S/O Amruth v. Hirasingh S/O Dattu Singh Thakur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Husanappa S/O Amruth v. Hirasingh S/O Dattu Singh Thakur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayaz Ahamed Ahamed S/O Abdul Majeed Lohari Vs Smt.Nagamma W/O Late Basappa

Maqbal S/O Bismilla Sab Mullawale Vs Manojkumar S/O Marutheppa Pujar and Anr.

Smt.Nagamma W/O Late Basappa and Ors. Vs Sri Ayaz Ahmed S/O. Abdul Majeed Lohari

Basavaraj S/O Budeppagouda @Budeppa Korvi Vs M.Rajendra Choudri S/O M.Rambabu Choudri and Anr.

Sharanappa Vs Hirasingh S/O Dattu Singh Thakur and Ors.

Parvati @ Manjula W/O Vithal, and Anr. Vs Hirasingh S/O Dattu Singh Thakur, and Ors.