Partly allowed

Nagaraj K G v. Shivakumar a

Karnataka HC6 Nov 2023MFA/4038/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals against a Tribunal award where claimants sought compensation enhancement. The Court exempted the insurance company from liability based on the driver's license category before relying on an Apex Court judgment to establish liability.

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed-in-part. Insurer held liable to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- each to claimants with accrued interest within 8 weeks.

Nagaraj K G Vs Shivakumar a — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39634 MFA No. 4038 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4050 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4038 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4050 OF 2017(MV-I)

¶6

IN MFA NO.4038 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARAJ K G S/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NANDIHALLI VILLAGE CHITHRADURGA TQ & DISTRICT-577501

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SHIVAKUMAR A S/O ANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OWNER OF MARUTHI VAN NO.KA-16/C-0595 R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 501

¶14

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO TLD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE, B D ROAD J M TOWER, CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.B.MANJUNATHA.,ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI B.A.RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39634 MFA No. 4038 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4050 of 2017

¶17

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED25.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.270/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1st SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND IVth MACT AT CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC.

¶18

IN MFA NO.4050 OF 2017

¶19

BETWEEN:

¶20

B BASAVARAJ S/O BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NANDIHALLI VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TQ AND DIST-577 501

¶21

…APPELLANT

¶22

(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

SHIVAKUMAR A S/O ANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OWNER OF MARUTHI VAN NO.KA-16/C-0595 R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 501

¶25

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO TLD BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE, B D ROAD J M TOWER, CHITRADURGA-577 501

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.B.MANJUNATHA.,ADVOCATE; FOR R-1 SRI B.A.RAMAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39634 MFA No. 4038 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4050 of 2017

¶28

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED25.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.270/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1st SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND IVTH MACT AT CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ETC.

¶29

THESE APPEALS, ARE COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

These two appeals are filed by the claimants aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.Nos.270 and 271/2015 dated 25.01.2017. The appeal filed by the claimants are MFA.No.4038/2017 and MFA.No.4050/2017 respectively.

¶32

The case of the claimants is that on 20.09.2014

¶33

at 6.45 a.m. both the claimants were travelling in a Maruthi Omni Car belonging to their friend. The Respondent No.1 was driving the car, because of his rash and negligent driving, the claimants sustained injuries all over body. Immediately both were shifted to the hospital.

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:39634 MFA No. 4038 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4050 of 2017

¶35

The claimant in MVC.No.270/2015, had sustained fracture of servicle spine pelvic of C-6 vertebra on right side and he was operated and the claimant in MVC.No.271/2015, had sustained fracture of left medial half of clavicle, fracture of right little finger of dorsal aspect. The court below considering the injuries, had granted global compensation of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as they have failed to adduced medical evidence and they failed to examine the doctor. When it comes to liability, the court has exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that claimant was having a license to drive "Light motor vehicle" Non-Transport and not to drive a commercial vehicle. The driver of vehicle was not having a driving license to drive a Transport vehicle. As such there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶36

Learned counsel for the claimant submits that

¶37

he was holding a LMV Non-Transport License in the year 2006 itself. He submits that as driver was driving a Non-

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39634 MFA No. 4038 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4050 of 2017

¶39

Transport Vehicle that itself cannot be a ground to exonerate the insurance company. He had relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case Mukund Dewangan -Vs- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,¹ and submits that, still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. On the question of quantum, it is submitted that, when the claimant had sustained fracture injuries, without considering any of the heads, granting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is on the lower side. It is submitted that the court below failed to grant a just and reasonable compensation.

¶40

Learned counsel for the insurance company

¶41

submits that court below had rightly exonerated the insurance company and enhancement of the compensation also, no grounds are made out.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. In this case, 1 AIR 2017 SCC 3668

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39634 MFA No. 4038 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4050 of 2017

¶44

admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was having license to drive a "light motor vehicle" non-transport but he was driving a transport vehicle. This issue is no more res-integra in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan Case referred supra, the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Then coming to the quantum, the court below had rightly granted the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and there is no evidence on record with regard to the bills and the medical evidence with regard to the fractures and other injuries sustained by them.

¶45

Accordingly appeals filed by the claimants i.e., MFA.No.4038/2017 and MFA.No.4050/2017 are Allowed-

¶46

in-part holding that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/each.

¶47

(a) Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the said enhanced compensation amount with accrued interest before the

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39634 MFA No. 4038 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 4050 of 2017

¶49

tribunal within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks.

¶50

(b) The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Record to the Tribunal along with the certified copy of the order passed by this court forthwith without any delay.

¶51

¶52

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶53

stand closed.

¶54

SD/JUDGE

¶55

TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 90

Nagaraj K G v. Shivakumar a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj K G v. Shivakumar a

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

Krishni Poojarthi Vs Santosh Kumar Singh

Sri Shiva Kumar S Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd

The Manager Vs M L Raghu

Sudha Vs v Kumara

Smt Parvathamma Vs Sri Ranganatha

Baby Elaina @ Kumari Aiyfath Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd.