Partly allowed

Mr K Praveen S/O Krishnappa v. Mr Nagappa S/O Channappa

Karnataka HC30 Nov 2022MFA/6950/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident appeal, the High Court enhanced the compensation award from Rs. 2,62,760 to Rs. 3,40,060 after assessing the claimant's age, disability, and loss of future income. The court also held the insurer liable by applying the Mukund Dewangan precedent regarding driving licenses for lighter vehicles.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,40,060; respondent directed to deposit amount with interest within six weeks.

Mr K Praveen S/O Krishnappa Vs Mr Nagappa S/O Channappa — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6950 OF 2012 (MV-)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR K PRAVEEN S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS C/O N T JAGADISH R/AT NO. 206, ARABIC COLLEGE POST NAGAVARA, BANGALORE-22.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI.B.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MR NAGAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA MAJOR, R/AT NO. 43 11^TH CROSS, IST BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-64.

¶12

Digitally signed by C MALATHI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED OFFICE AT:10002-E-8 RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA JAIPURA RAJASTHAN-302 022.

¶14

MR. KRISHNAPPA S/O KEMPANNA MAJOR, R/AT KONAGHATTA & POST DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶17

THE NATONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO. 1974, CINEMA ROAD SRINIVAS MARKET COMPLEX DODDABALLAPUR BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2. SMT. GEETHA RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R4: NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 28.04.2015: NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.3.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7438/2010 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACTIV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE CITY, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles

¶24

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been

¶25

filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.03.2012 passed by the MACT, Bengaluru in MVC No.7438/2010.

¶26

¶27

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶28

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 01.10.2010 the claimant was returning from Konnaghatta, Doddaballapura Taluk on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-43-J-5365 as a pillion rider along with the rider Suresh, when they were so returning carefully, cautiously on the left side of the road after the T.B.Circle, near the place called Jayanagar Bus Stop at 08.30 a.m., the driver of the Mahendra Pick up Jeep bearing Registration No.KA-02/AA-7000 belonging to the respondent No.1, drove the same in high speed, rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life from the opposite direction and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized.

¶29

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident

¶30

¶31

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶32

occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶33

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.2 and

¶34

4 have appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. The age, avocation and income of the claimant and the medical expenses are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

The respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed exparte.

¶36

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Dr.K. S. Swamy was examined as PW-2 and got

¶37

¶38

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶39

exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,62,760/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed respondent No.1 to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. The claim petition was dismissed against respondent Nos.2 and 4. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶40

The learned counsel for the claimant has raised the following contentions:

¶41

Firstly, at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged 18 years. He was pursuing ITI Course. Due to the accident, he has suffered grievous injuries. He has

¶42

¶43

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶44

examined the doctor as PW-2. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 36% to lower limb. But the Tribunal has taken the whole body disability at 12% is on the lower side. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘loss of future earning’ is also on lower side.

¶45

Secondly, due to the accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries. He was treated as inpatient for a period of 5 days. Even after discharge from the hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during treatment. Considering the same, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses are on the lower side.

¶46

Thirdly, the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.2/Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶49

Fourthly, even though the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport) and he was driving the Transport Vehicle, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663 , wherein it is held that a person holding driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport) can also drive Transport Vehicle, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

¶50

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised following counter contentions:

¶51

Firstly, even though the doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 36% to lower limb, it is only related to limb. The Tribunal considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and

¶52

¶53

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶54

evidence of the doctor, has rightly assessed the whole body disability at 12%.

¶55

Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the age of the claimant, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of ‘loss of future earning on account of disability’ is just and reasonable.

¶56

Thirdly, the injuries suffered by the claimant are minor in nature. He was inpatient in the hospital only for a period lf 5 days. Considering the same, the compensation awarded under the heads of 'loss of amenities', 'pain and sufferings' and other incidental expenses is just and reasonable and it does not call for interference.

¶57

Lastly , it is not in dispute that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (NonTransport) and he did not posses the licence to drive a Transport Vehicle as on the date of accident. Since, the

¶58

¶59

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶60

insured has violated the policy condition, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶61

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4/National Insurance Company has submitted that the claim petition against respondent No.4 is dismissed and the same has not been challenged by the insured. Therefore, she submits that respondent No.4 is only a formal party in this appeal.

¶62

9. Owner served and unrepresented.

¶63

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

¶64

It is not in dispute that the claimant has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred due

¶65

10 -

¶66

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶67

to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

¶68

RE: QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:

¶69

At the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 18 years and he was studying in Diploma. Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the monthly salary of the claimant can be assessed at Rs.5,500/-.

¶70

As per wound certificate, the claimant has sustained closed fracture of shaft of right femur in the middle thirds with vascular deficit due to injury of femoral vessels in the middle thirds of thigh, fracture of medial condyle of right femur and fracture of upper end of right tibia. The doctor in his evidence has stated that the claimant has suffered disability of 36% to lower limb. Therefore, taking into consideration the deposition of the doctor and injuries mentioned in the wound certificate, I am of the opinion

¶71

11 -

¶72

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶73

that the whole body disability can be assessed at 12%. The claimant is aged about 18 years at the time of the accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is ‘18’. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,42,560/- (Rs.5,5001218*12%) on account of 'loss of future income'.

¶74

The nature of injuries suggests that the claimant must have been under rest and treatment for a period of 5 months. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.27,500/- (Rs.5,500*5 months) under the head ‘loss of income during laid up period’.

¶75

Considering the nature of injuries, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads is just and reasonable.

¶76

12 -

¶77

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶78

12. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the following

¶79

compensation:

¶80

Compensation under different Heads	As awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.)	As awarded by this Court (Rs.)
Pain and sufferings	45,000	45,000
Medical expenses	80,000	80,000
Food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	5,000	5,000
Loss of income during laid up period	15,000	27,500
Loss of amenities	15,000	15,000
Loss of future income	77,760	1,42,560
Loss of Permanent Disability	15,000	15,000
Loss of Marriage Prospects	10,000	10,000
Total	2,62,760	3,40,060

¶81

RE: LIABILITY:

¶82

As on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive Light

¶83

13 -

¶84

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶85

Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport) but he was driving the Transport Vehicle. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘ MUKUND DEWANGAN’ (supra), if a person is holding driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (Non-Transport) can also drive Transport Vehicle, if the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kgs. The unladen weight of the vehicle involved in the accident is less than 7500 kgs.

¶86

In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation.

¶87

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part . The judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified.

¶88

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,40,060/-.

¶89

14 -

¶90

MFA No. 6950 of 2012

¶91

Respondent No.2 / Sriram General Insurance

¶92

Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount

¶93

along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

HA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 63

Mr K Praveen S/O Krishnappa v. Mr Nagappa S/O Channappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr K Praveen S/O Krishnappa v. Mr Nagappa S/O Channappa

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

Sri Naveen Alwyn Lasrado Vs the Branch Manager

Rangamma Vs Doddaiah Y

Heena Kousar Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Smt Mallamma Vs Ibrahim Hussen

Sri Nagarajappa Vs Sri. Nagendra N

Sri Chandrappa Vs Universal Sompoo General