Allowed

Ramzansab S/O Hazaresab Vatnal v. K P Chikkarangaiah S/O Puttaswamaiah

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024MFA/21578/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced motor accident compensation to Rs. 8,84,428/- after finding the original disability assessment inadequate and increased the multiplier. The court also shifted liability from the erstwhile owner to the current vehicle owner due to an expired driver's license.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,84,428/- with interest. Liability for payment shifted from first respondent to third respondent (current vehicle owner). Deposit returned to appellant in cross-appeal.

Ramzansab S/O Hazaresab Vatnal Vs K P Chikkarangaiah… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21578 OF 2012 (MV-I)

¶7

C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20881 OF 2013

¶8

IN M.F.A. NO.21578 OF 2012

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

RAMZANSAB S/O. HAZARESAB VATNAL AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NOW NIL, R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DT: BELAGAVI.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

SHRI. K.P. CHIKKARANGAIAH S/O. PUTTASWAMAIAH DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

¶14

Digitally signed by SAMREEN SAMREEN AYUB AYUB DESHNUR DESHNUR Date: 2024.02.23 16:53:08 +0530

¶15

1(a) GIRIJAYAMMA W/O. K.P. CHIKKARANGAIAH AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BASAVA PATTANA MAJARE KAREKALL PAYLYA URDAGERE POST: TUMUKUR.

¶16

1(b) NAVYA D/O. K.P. CHIKKARANGAIAH AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BASAVA PATTANA MAJARE KAREKALL PAYLYA URDAGERE POST: TUMUKUR.

¶17

1(c) DAKSHA S.GOUDA D/O. NAVYA D/O. K.P. CHIKKARANGAIAH AGE: 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NAVYA D/O. K.P. CHIKKARANGAIAH AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: BASAVA PATTANA MAJARE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶20

KAREKALL PAYLYA URDAGERE POST: TUMUKUR.

¶21

THE BRANCH MANGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE TUMAKUR, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶22

SRI. SURESH R. S/O. RANGASWAMAIAH R/O. MINNAPUR, POST: JAKKANAHALLI, TQ: NELAMANGALA DT: BANGALURU RURAL.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) – R1(C) MISS. VINAYA KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 SERVED)

¶25

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29-12-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2741/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

IN M.F.A. NO.20881 OF 2013

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SHRI. K.P. CHIKKARANGAIAH S/O. PUTTASWAMAIAH DECEASED BY HIS LR’S

¶29

1(a) SMT. GIRIJAYAMMA W/O. K.P. CHIKKARANGAIAH AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, KARKAL PALYA, KYATHASANDRA, POST: TUMUKUR, DIST: TUMKUR-572104.

¶30

1(b) NAVYA K.C D/O. K.P. CHIKKARANGAIAH, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

¶31

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶32

1(c) KUMARI DAKSHYA S.GOUDA D/O. SIDDARAJU, AGE: 5 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

¶33

APPELLANT 1(c) IS A MINOR. R/BY MINOR GUARDIAN NATURAL MOTHER APPELLANT 1(a) BOTH ARE R/O: B-39, OFFICERS QUARTERS, BEML NAGAR, KGF-563115.

¶34

…APPELLANTS

¶35

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶36

RAMZANSAB S/O. HAZARESAB VATNAL AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI, DT: BELAGAVI.

¶37

THE BRANCH MANGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BRANCH OFFICE TUMAKUR, THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI.

¶38

SRI. SURESH S/O. RANGASWAMAIAH AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MINNAPUR, POST: JAKKANAHALLI, TQ: NELAMANGALA, DIST: BANGALURU RURAL.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 MISS. VINAYA KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. N.R. KUPPELLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3 SERVED)

¶41

THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:29-12-2011 PASSED IN MVC.NO.2741/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, SAUNDATTI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,78,050/- WITH INTREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALISATION.

¶42

- 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶43

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

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Heard Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, Praveen Tarikar and Vinaya Kuppelur.

¶46

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

¶47

Claimants appeal challenging the inadequacy of the

¶48

compensation awarded in MVC No.2741/2009 dated 29.12.2011 on the file of Prl. Senior civil Judge and Addl.

¶49

MACT, Soundantti.

¶50

Admitted facts for disposal of the appeal are as under;

¶51

4.1 Claiamant being pedestrian sustained accidental injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the

¶52

driver of Maxi Cab bearing No.KA-69/6945 on 30.06.2009. He was shifted to hospital and he was treated and he has

¶53

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶54

sustained grievous injuries including the loss of vision in both the eyes. He has also suffered multiple fractures and therefore, doctor who issued the disability certificate has assessed the disability at 100%.

¶55

4.2 Taking note of the above aspect, tribunal on contest granted sum of Rs.5,78,050/- as compensation as under fastening the liability on the owner Sri.K.P.Chikkarangaiah

¶56

who was the first respondent.

¶57

Sl.No.	Name of heads	Amount(Rs.)
1	Loss of future income	3,45,600-00
2	Pain and suffering	50,000-00
3	Loss of amenities	50,000-00
4	Medical expenses	82,428-00
5	Loss of income during laid up period	25,000-00
6	Food, Conveyance and other incidental charges	25,000-00
	Total	5,78,050-00

¶58

Being aggrieved by the same, claimants are in

¶59

appeal.

¶60

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶61

Smt.Shaila Bellikatti reiterating the grounds urged in

¶62

the appeal memorandum sought for enhanced compensation by contending that the tribunal has wrongly taken disability fact at 50% and wrongly computed the monthly income.

¶63

She also contended that on the head of future medical expenses and loss of amenities in life the award of compensation is on lower side and sought for enchantment of compensation.

¶64

Per contra, Sri.Praveen Tarikar representing the first respondent not only supported the impugned judgment to the extent of quantum of compensation but also contended that as on the date of accident, he sold the vehicle in respect of 3^rd respondent namely Sri.Suresh Rangaswamaiah and he has also placed on record ‘B’ register extract with regard to the vehicle in question whereby in the books of Regional Transport Office wherein name of 3^rd respondent is being shown as owner of the offending vehicle. As such, first respondent ceased to be

¶65

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶66

the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident and therefore, the liability is to be shifted on the owner of the Maxi cab namely Sri.Suresh Rangaswamaiah.

¶67

The reason for fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle and exonerating the insurance company is that, as on the date of the accident driver of the Maxi cab did not possess the valid driving license, as the same has expired and it was not renewed.

¶68

Miss.Vinaya Kuppellur learned counsel representing the insurance company supported the impugned judgment.

¶69

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

¶70

On such perusal of material on record, the accidental injures sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident that occurred on 30.06.2009 involving the Maxi cable bearing No.KA-69/6945 stands established by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence on

¶71

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶72

record. Doctor who has issued the disability certificate has assessed the disability factor at 100% in Ex.P.84 and P.85.

¶73

There is a total loss of vision in both the eyes,

¶74

despite the claimant taking the treatment in the eye hospital of M.M.Joshi at Hubballi.

¶75

Further, on the head pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of income during the laid up period food nourishment charges needs reasonable enhancement.

¶76

Since, there are multiple fractures suffered by the injured, and there is loss of vision, injured cannot indulge himself in day to day activity without assistance of another person. Therefore, assessing the disability at 50% by the tribunal is on the lower side and needs to be enhanced to 60%. Likewise, on the other heads also, a case is made out by the claimants for enhancement of compensation.

¶77

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶78

Injured was aged 28 years as on the date of accident

¶79

as per the material placed on record, therefore, proper

¶80

multiplier is 17 and not 16 as ordered by the tribunal.

¶81

Hence, quantum of compensation is reassessed as under:

¶82

Sl.No.	Name of heads	Amount(Rs.)
1	Loss of future income	6,12,000-00
2	Pain and suffering	60,000-00
3	Loss of amenities	60,000-00
4	Medical expenses	82,428-00
5	Loss of income during laid up period	35,000-00
6	Food, Conveyance and other incidental charges	35,000-00
	Total	8,84,428-00

¶83

Insofar as appeal by the erstwhile owner first respondent of the Maxi cab Sri.K.P.Chikkarangaiah, no material evidence is placed on record before the tribunal so as to transfer of vehicle to the Suresh who is 3^rd respondent in the claim petition.

¶84

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶85

However, ’B’ register extract is placed before this court which would clearly establish that as on the date of accident, vehicle was transferred in the name of 3^rd respondent Sri. Suresh and therefore, first respondent K.P.Chikkarangaiah who is the owner of the maxi cab in question, tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that as on the date of accident, the driver of the Maxi Cab did not posses valid driving license inasmuch as driving license has expired long back and same was not renewed.

¶86

Accordingly, it is the responsibility of the owner to

¶87

pay the compensation as there was a clear violation of the policy condition.

¶88

Therefore, liability fastened on the first respondent needs to be shifted to Sri. Suresh who is third respondent in the claim petition. It is pertinent to note that third respondent did not choose to contest the claim petition before the trial court nor appeal before this court despite service of notice.

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2024:KHC-D:2847 MFA No. 21578 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 20881 of 2013

¶91

22. Accordingly, the following:

¶92

ORDER

¶93

i) Appeal filed by the claimant in MFA No.21578/2012 is allowed.

¶94

ii) As against compensation in a sum of Rs.5,78,050/-, claimant is entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.8,84,428/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, recoverable from 3^rd respondent.

¶95

iii) Consequently, appeal filed by the first respondent in MFA No.20881/2013 is allowed. Liability fastened on the first respondent is set aside and the liability is shifted to the 3^rd respondent Sri.Suresh .

¶96

iv) Amount in deposit made by the appellant is ordered to be returned to appellant in MFA No.20881/2013 under due identification.

¶97

Sd/JUDGE

¶98

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

¶99

HMB

Ramzansab S/O Hazaresab Vatnal v. K P Chikkarangaiah S/O Puttaswamaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramzansab S/O Hazaresab Vatnal v. K P Chikkarangaiah S/O Puttaswamaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

The Manager, Vs Smt.Sujathamma @ C. Sujatha

The Manager Uniged India Insu.Co.Ltd., Vs Sharanappa Bhimappa Jogi

The Branch Manager Vs Smt.Shakunthalamma W/O Late Murtheppa

The Managing Director Vs Shri.Prabhakar Annu Pujari