Partly allowed

Sri Manjunatha v. Ashoka

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2022MFA/24/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the appeal in part against a Motor Vehicles Tribunal award. The court enhanced the global compensation from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 25,000 for the minor claimant, confirming liability against the tractor owner and the insurance company.

What did the court decide?

The global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 25,00/-, to be paid by Respondents 1 and 3.

Sri Manjunatha Vs Ashoka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 24 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2012 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MANJUNATHA S/O D.THIRUPATHY, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS SINCE MINOR REP. THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER D.THIRUPATHY S/O DURUGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O KORACHARAHATTY, INDIRA NAGAR, BETHUR ROAD, DAVANAGERE

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. A HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ASHOKA

¶13

S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA Digitally signed DRIVER OF TRACTOR & TRAILER BEARING by PANKAJA S REG NO.KA-17/A-3742-43 Location: High R/O RAGIMASALAVADA VILLAGE & POST Court of HARAPANAHALLY TALUK Karnataka

¶14

N.G.JAGADEESH

¶15

S/O N.PARAMESHWARAPPA, MAJOR OWNER OF THE TRACTOR & TRAILER BEARING REG NO.KA-17/A-3742-43

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 24 of 2012

¶18

R/O RAGIMASALAVADA VILLAGE & POST HARAPANAHALLY TALUK

¶19

THE MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DENTAL COLLAGE ROAD, MELAGIRI PLAZA DAVANGERE

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.S.SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 25/03/2014, NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.27/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT-V, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

1. The claimant is in appeal challenging the award of

¶26

global compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the simple injuries suffered by him.

¶27

The Tribunal has found that the driver of the

¶28

offending vehicle did not possess the driving licence and

¶29

¶30

MFA No. 24 of 2012

¶31

the claimant was unable to establish that the driver

¶32

possessed a driving licence.

¶33

It is found that the injuries sustained by the claimant were simple in nature and a sum of Rs.10,000/- would be adequate compensation.

¶34

In my view, since the claimant was unable to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the driving licence, the order of the Tribunal exonerating the liability of the insurance company cannot be found fault with.

¶35

It is also to be stated here that the Police while charge-sheeting the driver, had subsequently charged the driver for not possessing a driving licence and this factor also indicates that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a driving licence in order to attract the liability on the insurance company.

¶36

As regards awarding of the global compensation of Rs.10,000/-, it would be proper to enhance it to a sum of

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 24 of 2012

¶39

Rs.25,000/- having regard to the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, who was a minor boy aged 15 years as on the date of the accident.

¶40

Thus, the appeal is allowed in part .

¶41

The global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

¶42

enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, which is liable to be paid by respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶43

SD/JUDGE

¶44

RK Ct: AN

Sri Manjunatha v. Ashoka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha v. Ashoka

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

Smt v M Sumithra Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Padmanabha Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Wilson.T Vs Mrs.Vimala Rai

The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kallesha N

Sri. Kallesha N Vs Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.