Partly allowed

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Bellary v. Umesh S/O. Siddappa Kadamanahalli

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2023MFA/20071/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the claimant's appeal to enhance compensation in a motor accident case but dismissed the insurance company's appeal. The Court applied a Supreme Court ruling to hold the insurer liable despite a technical discrepancy in the driving license regarding vehicle transport status.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in addition to the Tribunal's award, totaling Rs. 74,679/- with 6% interest payable by the insurance company.

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Bellary Vs Umesh S/O. Siddappa… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20854/2012(MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20071/2012

¶8

IN MFA.NO.20854/2012:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

UMESH S/O. SIDDAPPA KADAMANAHALLI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND MILK VENDOR, R/O: KALLIHA, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR R. HIREMATH, FOR SRI H.R.HOOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶15

PRAKASH S/O. SEETAWWA GALEPPANAVAR, AGE : MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HAVERI TQ AND DISTRICT: HAVERI.

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., V.A. KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI NAGARAJ C. KALLORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH.)

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2011, PASSED

¶20

¶21

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶22

BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD, IN M.V.C.NO.411/2010, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE PETITIONERAPPELLANT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

IN MFA NO.20071/2012:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

RELIANCE GEN. INSURANCE COMPANY. CO. LTD. BALLARI REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL CLAIMS, CTS, 472-474, V A KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CIRCLE DESHAPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR R. HIREMATH, FOR SRI H.R.HOOLI, ADVOCATE.)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SRI UMESH S/O. SIDDAPPA KADAMANAHALLI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND MILKVENDING, R/O: KALLIHALLI, TQ AND DIST: HAVERI.

¶30

SRI PRAKASH S/O. SHEETAWWA GALEPPANAVAR, AGE : MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, HAVERI, TQ AND DISTRICT: HAVERI.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI NAGARAJ C. KALLORI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – NOTICE SERVED.)

¶33

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.11.2011, PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HAVERI, IN MVC NO.411/2010, AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS

¶34

- 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶35

THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

These two appeals are arising out of a judgment and award dated 18.11.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Haveri, in MVC No.411/2010.

¶38

MFA No.20854/2012 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. MFA No.20071/2012 is filed by the insurance company questioning the liability fastened on it on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence.

¶39

Brief facts of the case are that, on 09.11.2009, the claimant came to APMC, Haveri, to sell cotton and after unloading the cotton bails at APMC market, he was standing by the side of the road. At that time one TATA Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/A-1253 loaded with cotton bails, came in a high sped and in a rash and

¶40

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶41

negligent manner and suddenly took curve towards left side and therefore, one cotton bail fall on the claimant and thereby caused the accident. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. He was shifted to hospital and he took treatment by spending huge amount of money.

¶42

Hence the claimant preferred a claim petition before the tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The tribunal considering the material placed on record has allowed the claim petition in part by awarding a compensation of Rs.49,679/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the claimant is in appeal before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the insurance company is in appeal before this Court seeking to set aside the judgment and award passed by the tribunal.

¶43

- 5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶44

Heard the learned counsel representing the

¶45

insurance company and the learned counsel representing the claimant.

¶46

The learned counsel for insurance company contended that in the present case the vehicle involved is TATA Ace vehicle which is a light motor vehicle (transport). The driver who drove the said TATA Ace vehicle was having driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non transport). Therefore on the ground that the driver did not have driving licence to drive the transport vehicle, contended that there is violation of condition of insurance policy. Hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶47

The issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663 . The class of vehicle which caused the accident and the driver was holding the driving licence are one and the same. The

¶48

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶49

class of vehicle is light motor vehicle. But the only difference is types of vehicle. Even though the person who is holding driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle (non transport), can also drive the light motor vehicle (transport). Therefore the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in Mukund Devangan case supra . Hence there is no force in the ground urged by the learned counsel for insurance company. Hence there no interference is required on this point. Accordingly the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

Now coming to the aspect of compensation, from the evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the injuries L.S.spine tenderness, L.S.spine ore soft from oedore and both lower limbs.

¶51

The aforesaid injuries are grievous in nature. The quantum of compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the tribunal under the head injuries, pain and suffering is correct and justifiable. The compensation of Rs.9,679/-

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶53

¶54

awarded under the head medical expenses is as per the actual bills and receipts produced. Therefore the same is kept intact.

¶55

Further, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- is

¶56

awarded under the head loss of amenities. A compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period and medical treatment period. Further a compensation of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards incidental charges like attendant charges, food, nourishment, etc.,. Further, a compensation of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges.

¶57

Thus, in all the claimant is entitled for a total

¶58

compensation as under:

¶59

Sl. No.	Heads.	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Towards injuries, pain and suffering.	25,000
2.	Towards medical expenses.	9,679
3.	Towards loss of amenities.	20,000
4.	Towards loss of income during laid up period and medical treatment period.	10,000

¶60

- 8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶61

Towards incidental charges like 5,000
attendant charges, food,
nourishment, etc.,.
6. Towards transportation charges 5,000
Total: 74,679
Compensation awarded by 49,679
tribunal:
Enhanced compensation: 25,000

¶62

Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.74,679/- as against Rs.49,679/awarded by the tribunal. The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.74,679 – Rs.49,679), along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of total compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶63

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

i) The appeal in MFA No.20854/2012

¶66

filed by the claimant is allowed in part.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶69

ii) The appeal in MFA No.20071/2012

¶70

filed by the insurance company is dismissed.

¶71

iii) The judgment and award dated 18.11.2011, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Haveri, in MVC No.411/2010 stands modified to the aforesaid extent.

¶72

iv) The claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

v) The remaining observations and findings made by the Tribunal in the aforesaid impugned judgment and award are kept in tact.

¶74

vi) The insurance company shall pay the compensation to the claimant.

¶75

vii) The amount in deposit is ordered to

¶76

be transmitted to the tribunal.

¶77

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8143 MFA No. 20854 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20071 of 2012

¶78

viii) No order as to costs.

¶79

ix) Draw award accordingly.

¶80

SD/JUDGE

¶81

MRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26 CT-ASC

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Bellary v. Umesh S/O. Siddappa Kadamanahalli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Bellary v. Umesh S/O. Siddappa Kadamanahalli

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

The Executive Engineer Vs Rathnavva W/O. Honnappa Hallahalli

The Manager Vs Varalakshmi W/O Late Bazarappa @ Munna

The Manager, Vs Gangadhar S/O Guddappa Shettar

Shri Makaboolsab S/O Imamsab Makandar Vs Hussainbeg Yane Nissar Mahaboob Beg Guddunavar

The Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Suvarna W/O Mallappa Akki

Mallappa Adivepa Kotabagi Vs Nayan D. Bendke