Partly allowed

Manju v. K Raju

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024MFA/2529/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal, the High Court modified the tribunal's award regarding motor accident compensation. The court held that while the vehicle was hired for pay (breaching policy), the insurer must pay compensation at the first instance and recover it from the owner. It also enhanced the total compensation from Rs. 2,19,000 to Rs. 3,04,800 due to greater injury and loss of amenity.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,04,800; insurer directed to pay first and recover from respondent owner.

Manju Vs K Raju — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2529 OF 2012 (MV)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANJU S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT BRAMANARA STREET, SAKALESHPURA TOWN AND TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶10

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.121, 3^RD CROSS, BUDDA MARGA, VIDYANAGARA, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

K. RAJU S/O KRISHNAPPA, MAJOR, R/O CHANNAPURA VILLAGE, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶16

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.114, CRESENT COURT, K.M.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALORE,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶19

REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., SRI VENKATESHWARA COMPLEX, B.M.ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GEETHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 13.11.2024 APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS DISMISSED)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.10.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1216/2009 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER AND ADDITIONAL MACT, FAST TRACK COURT-1, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 15.10.2011 passed in MVC.No.1216/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Addl. MACT and Fast Track Court-I, Hassan, seeking enhancement of compensation as well as modification of

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶27

liability fixed on the owner of Maruti Van bearing Reg.No.KA-19/S-6333.

¶28

Brief facts of the case are that, the claimant

¶29

along with others were travelling on 06.05.2008 in Maruti Van bearing Reg.No.KA-19/S-6333 to Kyanahalli and after returning from Kyanahalli to Sakaleshpura Town, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of said vehicle, the accident was caused. Therefore, the claimant being occupant in the Van has sustained injuries along with others. Therefore, he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation.

¶30

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

¶31

Rs.2,19,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., by fastening liability on the owner of the Maruti Van on the reason that the claimant has travelled in the van as a fare paid passenger. The Maruti Van was a private vehicle, but was hired by the claimant. Therefore, for hire and reward

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶33

purpose, the vehicle was hired and taken on reward. Hence, there is violation of terms and conditions of policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is exonerated from payment of compensation and fixed the liability on the owner of the Maruti Van.

¶34

In the present case, admittedly, the Maruti van is a private vehicle. The claimant and others have travelled in the said Maruti van. The claimant while examining himself as P.W.1 in the trial before the Tribunal, he has admitted in the cross-examination that he and along with others were travelling in the Maruti Van bearing Reg.No.KA-19/S-6333 and the van belongs to respondent No.1 herein and it was taken on hire for Rs.1,500/-. Therefore, it is proved that the said Maruti van was taken on hire basis. The insurance policy is a package policy and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if the vehicle is used for hire and reward basis, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. Therefore, it is proved that the

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶36

Maruti van was taken on hire basis, which contravenes the terms and conditions of the policy.

¶37

Though, in respect of the very same accident,

¶38

the other inmates in the van had obtained award and this Court in MFA.No.2630/2011 dated 27.04.2016 has held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, but this admission was not brought to the notice of the Court in the said case. Therefore, it is ordered in the said appeal that exoneration of Insurance Company is not correct. But upon considering the evidence on record, in this case, much particularly, upon perusing the admissions of claimant-P.W.1 in the cross-examination, it is proved that the claimant has taken the Maruti van for hire. Therefore, violation is proved. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from payment of compensation and respondent No.1-owner is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶40

In the similar circumstances, the Hon’ble

¶41

Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra and another¹ , wherein the claimant has travelled in the Tractor as a passenger, but ordered pay and recovery. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.Ranganathan and Others Vs. The Branch Manager, United India

¶42

Insurance Company Limited and Others² on the factual matrix that the deceased has travelled on the mudguard of the tractor, met with an accident and died and passed an order of pay and recovery. Therefore, following the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as above stated in this case also an order of pay and recovery is made directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation at the first instance to the claimant and then recover the same from respondent No.1-owner of the Maruti Van bearing Reg.No.KA-19/S-6333. Liberty is reserved to the Insurance Company to file execution petition against the owner of the Maruti van and may seek

¶43

1 2018 SCC 432

¶44

2 MANU-SC-1705-2022

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶47

for attachment of movable and immovable property of the

¶48

owner of Maruti Van for recovery of amount.

¶49

7. In the present case, from the medical evidence

¶50

on record, it is proved that the claimant has suffered fracture of femur bone and suffered shortening of leg by 3 inches.

¶51

8. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation

¶52

under various heads as follows:

¶53

1	Pain and sufferings	Rs.	25,000/-
2	Loss of income during treatment	Rs.	3,000/-
3	Attendant charges	Rs.	5,000/-
4	Food and nourishment	Rs.	6,000/-
5	Medical expenses	Rs.	1,00,000/-
6	Loss of amenities	Rs.	15,000/-
7	Loss of future income due to disability	Rs.	65,000/-
	Total	Rs.	2,19,000/-

¶54

The compensation amount awarded by the

¶55

Tribunal is on the lesser side. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly,

¶56

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶57

compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head injury, pain and suffering as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶58

The accident is caused in the year 2008. Therefore, notional income is taken at Rs.4,500/- per month in the absence of proof of income. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.18,000/- (Rs.4,500/- p.m., x 4 months) is awarded under the head loss of income during laid up period as against Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶59

The claimant was inpatient for a period of 35 days. Accordingly, compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head incidental expenses i.e., food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges etc., as against the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶61

The compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded

¶62

under the head medical expenses is as per the actual bills produced. Hence, it is kept in tact.

¶63

The compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the head loss of amenities as against Rs.15,000/awarded by the Tribunal.

¶64

The doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered 30% of disability towards limb, which comes to 10% towards whole body. As the claimant is aged 24 yars,

¶65

the appropriate multiplier applicable is “18”. Accordingly, compensation under the head loss of future income due to disability is re-assessed and quantified as follows:

¶66

Rs.4,500/- x 17 x 10% x 12=Rs.91,800/-

¶67

Accordingly, compensation of Rs.91,800/- is

¶68

awarded under the head loss of future income due to disability.

¶69

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶70

Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to

¶71

total compensation under various heads as follows:

¶72

1	Pain and sufferings	Rs.	40,000/-
2	Loss of income during treatment	Rs.	18,000/-
3	Incidental expenses i.e., food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges etc.,	Rs.	25,000/-
4	Medical expenses	Rs.	1,00,000/-	Kept in tact
5	Loss of amenities	Rs.	30,000/-
6	Loss of future income due to disability	Rs.	91,800/-
	TOTAL	Rs.	3,04,800/-

¶73

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,19,000/-. But, the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.3,04,800/-. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.85,800/- (Rs.3,04,800/- - Rs.2,19,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till

¶74

the date of payment, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶77

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶78

ORDER

¶79

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶80

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 15.10.2011 passed in MVC.No.1216/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Addl. MACT and Fast Track Court, Hassan, is hereby modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.85,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶81

iii. No order as to costs.

¶82

iv. The Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation at the first instance and then recover it from respondent No.1-owner of the Maruti Van bearing Reg.No.KA-19/S-6333.

¶83

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:48112 MFA No. 2529 of 2012

¶84

v. Liberty is reserved to the Insurance Company to file execution petition against the owner of the Maruti van and may seek for attachment of movable and immovable property of the owner of Maruti van for recovery of amount.

¶85

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶86

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶87

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Manju v. K Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju v. K Raju

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

Shanthamma @ Shanthi Vs Anusuya

Sri. Bheemaiah Vs Smt. Sulochanamma

Sri P C Chandrappa Vs Sri B R Krishnamurthy

Sri B Siddappa Vs Sri N Hombe Gowda

Smt. Pushpa @ Pushpamma, Vs Sri.N.Nagaraj

Smt Doddamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer