Partly allowed

Nagappa S/O Lokanagouda Police Patil v. Parashuram Rajaram Patil

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2024MFA/101385/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed part of the appeal by enhancing compensation awarded for a motor accident injury. Liability remained with the vehicle owner as the court found the accident did not occur while the passenger was travelling along with goods, thus maintaining victim status as a gratuitous passenger.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased from Rs.2,59,331/- to Rs.3,59,331/- with 6% interest to be recovered from the vehicle owner.

Nagappa S/O Lokanagouda Police Patil Vs Parashuram… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2621 MFA No. 101385 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101385 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NAGAPPA S/O. LOKANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGE:37 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: BISARALLI, TQ and DIST:KOPPAL.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. PADMAJA S.TADAPATRI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

PARASHURAM RAJARAM PATIL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWENR OF THE CANTER BEARING NO. KA-22/A-3995 AND BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 2314, CROSS NO.2 KAPILESHWAR ROAD, BELAGAVI, TAL. and DIST:BELAGAVI.

¶14

SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR

¶15

Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Date: 2024.02.15 13:27:59 +0530

¶16

DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NEAR PRIYADARSHINI HOTEL, STATION ROAD, HOSPET DIST:BALLARI.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S.S. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.265/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOPPAL, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS M.F.A., COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2621 MFA No. 101385 of 2017

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard Smt.Padmaja Tadapatri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.S.S.Joshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company.

¶25

Respondent No.1 – owner of the offending vehicle though served, remained unrepresented.

¶26

Appeal is by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in MVC No.265/2015 on the file of Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koppal dated 19.01.2017 and also shifting liability from the owner to the Insurance Company.

¶27

Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of this case are as under:

¶28

On 28.08.2008, the claimant along with other farmers boarded mini lorry bearing No.KA-22/A-6995 along with vegetables for the purpose of selling same at Belagavi. When the said vehicle reached near Sharma petrol bunk, the vehicle met with an accident at 11.30

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2621 MFA No. 101385 of 2017

¶30

p.m. The claimant was shifted to hospital and was treated

¶31

there and got cured. For the disability sustained and injuries sustained, he laid a claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.

¶32

Claim petition, on contest, came to be allowed

¶33

in a sum of Rs.2,59,331/- as under:

¶34

Heads of compensation	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	10,000-00
Medical expenses	9,323-00
Loss of future income	2,35,008-00
Special damages/travelling expenses	5,000-00
Total	2,59,331-00

¶35

Taking note of the fact that the injured was a

¶36

gratuitous passenger, liability was fastened on the owner of the lorry.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the quantum of

¶38

compensation and fastening of liability on the owner, the claimant is in appeal.

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2621 MFA No. 101385 of 2017

¶40

Smt.Padmaja Tadapatri, learned counsel for the appellant – claimant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, contended that the material available on record is not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.

¶41

She also contended that on the head of pain and suffering, award of compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- is on lower side and no compensation is awarded on the heads of attendant and nourishment charges, loss of income during laid up period and loss of amenities.

¶42

She further contended that since the claimant

¶43

was travelling in the lorry along with goods, he cannot be termed as a gratuitous passenger and sought for shifting liability the on Insurance Company.

¶44

Per contra, Sri.S.S.Joshi, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment contending that the claimant failed to prove that he was proceeding along with the goods in the offending

¶45

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2621 MFA No. 101385 of 2017

¶46

vehicle as on the date of accident and sought for dismissal of appeal.

¶47

Insofar as quantum of compensation is

¶48

concerned, he submits that suitable enhancement can be made having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶49

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶50

On such perusal of material on record, it is seen

¶51

that the Tribunal has granted only Rs.10,000/- on the head of pain and suffering. So also, on the heads of loss of amenities and loss of income during laid up period and attendant and nourishment charges, no amount is awarded.

¶52

Therefore, there is scope for enhancement of compensation.

¶53

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2621 MFA No. 101385 of 2017

¶54

Instead of enhancing the compensation on each

¶55

and every head, if the compensation is enhanced by another Rs.1,00,000/-, ends of justice would be met.

¶56

This would take this Court to the next question as to whether the claimant has made out a case for shifting the liability of the owner to the Insurance Company.

¶57

Material on record especially the police record would go to show that there is no vegetables in the vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the contention taken on behalf of the claimant that he was proceeding along with the goods from Koppal to Belagavi stands not proved. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant is a gratuitous passenger.

¶58

Accordingly, there is no scope for shifting liability on the Insurance Company as there is violation of policy condition.

¶59

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2621 MFA No. 101385 of 2017

¶60

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, following order is passed:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

(i) Appeal is allowed in part.

¶63

(ii) As against a sum of Rs.2,59,331/- awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,59,331/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

¶64

(iii) The compensation amount is to be recovered from the owner of the offending lorry bearing No.KA-22/A-6995.

¶65

(iv) Four weeks time is granted to deposit the compensation.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

¶68

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0

Nagappa S/O Lokanagouda Police Patil v. Parashuram Rajaram Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagappa S/O Lokanagouda Police Patil v. Parashuram Rajaram Patil

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

Shivamurthy S/O. Venkatappa Vs Chinnaswamy S/O. Subbappa

The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Santosh S/O Ramesh Habib

Sri Gurunath S/O Ramu Gadivaddar Vs Smt. Shilpa W/O Gurunatha Gadiwadar

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

Holabasayya S/O Sannholabasayya Mooti Vs Appanna S/O Ningappa Mugalolli