Partly allowed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Chidanand S/O Shankar Nemagoudar

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2024MFA/100009/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company challenged a motor accident award claiming the auto rickshaw lacked a valid permit and that compensation was inflated. Court upheld liability citing the Government's pandemic notification extending permit validity, reduced loss-of-future-income using one-third of the assessed disability since the treated doctor was not examined, and cut total compensation to Rs.5,00,968 with inte

What did the court decide?

Award reduced from Rs.10,00,968/- to Rs.5,00,968/- payable with interest at 8% per annum from date of petition till realization; no costs.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri Chidanand S/O Shankar… — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2763 MFA No. 100009 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100009 OF 2024 (MV-I)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BELAGAVI D.O. AT PRABHU BUILDING, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI,

¶8

REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

¶9

Digitally signed by BHARATHI BHARATHI H M H M Date: 2024.02.21 11:59:20 +0530

¶10

INSURER OF BAJAJ AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING NO.KA-49/3880 POLICY NO. 61020131206360002717 VALID FROM 22-02-2021 TO 21-02-2023) POLICY ISSUED BY GOKAK BRANCH

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SHRI. CHIDANAND S/O. SHANKAR NEMAGOUDAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND MILK VENDING, NOW NIL, R/O: ARABHAVI, TQ: MUDALAGI,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2763 MFA No. 100009 of 2024

¶17

DIST: BELAGAVI 590001.

¶18

SHRI. JAVED JAFAR DESHNOOR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: JANATA PLOT, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591307, OWNER/POLICY HOLDER OF BAJAJ AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING NO.KA-49/3880)

¶19

SRI. PRADEEP PRAKASH AASHI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SUNAGAR GALLI, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI 591307, RC/PERMIT HOLDER OF BAJAJ AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING NO. KA-49/3880

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ANJANEYA M. ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE SERVED TO R2 AND R3, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL FILED U/S.173(1)

¶23

OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.10.2023 PASSED IN MVC NO.1777/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2763 MFA No. 100009 of 2024

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Though the matter is listed for admission, by consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

Heard Shri. S. C. Bhuti, learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company and Shri. Anjaneya M., learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶30

Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.1777/2021 dated 11.10.2023 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

¶31

Facts in brief which are not in dispute are as under:

¶32

4.1. Claimant suffered accidental injuries involving the Auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-49/3880 on 22.05.2021 at about 8.00 p.m. He was admitted to hospital and cured of all injuries. However, he suffered disability on account of accidental injuries.

¶33

Claim petition on contest came to be allowed in a sum of Rs.10,00,968/- as under:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2763 MFA No. 100009 of 2024

¶36

Sl.No.	Heads	Compensation amount in Rs.
1	Pain and sufferings	40,000-00
2	Loss of future income	8,37,900-00
3	Food and Attendant charges	2,500-00
4	Medical and hospital bill	92,068-00
5	Loss of earning during laid up period	28,500-00
	Total	10,00,968-00

¶37

Being aggrieved by the same, Insurance Company is in appeal.

¶38

Shri. S. C. Bhuti, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the vehicle did not have proper permit to ply on road as on the date of accident. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶39

He further contended that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has taken into consideration 35% disability as assessed by the doctor Shri. Gangadhar

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2763 MFA No. 100009 of 2024

¶41

Umarani who issued the disability certificate at Ex.P.10, who is admittedly not a treated doctor.

¶42

He also contended that rate of interest at 8% per annum is also on the higher side and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶43

Per Contra , Shri. Anjaneya M., learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently contended that the accident has occurred during the Covid-19 period and at that juncture, notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has extended validity of the documents related to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V.Act’), and Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 and relaxation in permit, fees/taxes etc., were automatically extended.

¶44

Therefore, there was no scope for renewal in the permit of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, on the said ground Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability.

¶45

Insofar as the compensation is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contended that the doctor who has assessed the disability has been examined and therefore,

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2763 MFA No. 100009 of 2024

¶47

Tribunal was justified in assessing disability factor at 35% and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶48

He also contended that interest is appropriately awarded at 8% and there is no scope for interference and sought for dismissal of the appeal in toto.

¶49

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶50

On such perusal, there is no scope for avoiding the liability by the appellant on the ground that the vehicle did not have the proper permit in view of the notification No.RT11036/35/2020-MVL dated 30.09.2021. Therefore, Insurance Company being a company which is also regulated by the Government of India regulation cannot take such frivolous pleas.

¶51

This Court expresses its unhappiness for raising such frivolous grounds on the part of the appellant-Insurance Company as Insurance Company was very much bound by the notification issued especially issued by the Government of India especially when the entire nation was suffering from Pandemic Covid-19.

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2763 MFA No. 100009 of 2024

¶53

Therefore, said contention of the Insurance

¶54

Company is to be dismissed.

¶55

Further, there is sufficient force in the arguments of the counsel for appellant insofar as the quantum of compensation inasmuch as PW.2 is not a treated doctor.

¶56

It is a standard practice that when the treated doctor is not examined before the Court, the assessment of disability factor is taking 1/3^rd of the disability shown in the disability certificate.

¶57

In the case on hand, the disability certificate is marked at Ex.P.10, wherein the disability factor is assessed at 35%. Therefore, 1/3^rd of it is 12% and the same should have been taken by the Tribunal while assessing quantum of compensation on the head of loss of future income on account of accidental injuries and the disability thereof.

¶58

Therefore, a case is made out for reduction of compensation on that ground. However, the Tribunal did not take into consideration the grant of appropriate compensation on the head of food and attendant charges and so also no amount is awarded on the head of loss of amenities.

¶59

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2763 MFA No. 100009 of 2024

¶60

Therefore, if a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is deducted out

¶61

of the total adjudged compensation the same would meet the ends of justice.

¶62

Further, having regard to the bank interest rate prevailing at the time of passing award, the Tribunal has its discretion to grant 8% interest since the claim petition is filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act.

¶63

24. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶66

(ii) As against sum of Rs.10,00,968/-

¶67

awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,968/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶68

(iii) No order as to costs.

¶69

SMM/LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 42

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Chidanand S/O Shankar Nemagoudar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Chidanand S/O Shankar Nemagoudar

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

Dilip Ishwara Salokhe @ Salunke Vs Vasant S/O. Shripati Jagatap

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs M. Ramelsh @ Ramesh S/O Late M Arjunappa

Nagappa S/O Lokanagouda Police Patil Vs Parashuram Rajaram Patil

Mariyappa S/O Basappa Tidi Vs Madhu @ Mudukappa S/O Basappa

The Manager, Vs Smt.Sujathamma @ C. Sujatha

Shri. Shirmant B Gudasalmani, Vs the United Basel Mission Church in India