Partly allowed

Nagaraja v. Arun Kumar S

Karnataka HC18 Jan 2024MFA/4217/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 173(1) MV Act seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation and challenging liability fastened on the truck owner. The court held the claimant travelled as an authorized representative of goods, covered by Section 147, so the insurer must indemnify the owner. Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,15,280/- with enhanced amount of Rs.16,564/- plus 6% interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.16,564/- with 6% interest from date of petition till realization; Insurance Company directed to indemnify owner and pay compensation.

Nagaraja Vs Arun Kumar S — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4217 OF 2017 (MV-I)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARAJA S/O THIMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O KONDARAJANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOLAR TALUK.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY MRS. SWATI G. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR

¶11

SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

ARUN KUMAR S S/O SRINIVASAPPA, AGED MAJOR, R/O NO.555, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, KOLAR TOWN-563 101.

¶15

SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.5, 3^RD FLOOR, MOMARK CHAMBER,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶17

INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-01 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE; R1 NOTICE SERVED)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.01.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.391/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND A.C.J.M., KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

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

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The present appeal is filed by the

¶24

appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 11.01.2017 passed in MVC.No.391/2015 by the MACT and I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, for seeking enhancement of compensation as well as questioning the liability fastened on the owner of the truck.

¶25

The factum of accident, injuries sustained

¶26

by the claimant is not disputed. The disputed fact is

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶28

whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner or not.

¶29

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶30

perused the records.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

¶32

submitted that the claimant was travelling in the truck as an authorized representative of the goods as he was working under the employment of respondent No.1. Therefore, prays for modification of liability fastened on the owner of the truck and also for seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company submitted that the claimant was travelling as a passenger. Therefore, risk is not covered. Hence, justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶36

In the present case, the claimant was

¶37

travelling as a coolie in the truck and while unloading the granite slaps accident has occurred and sustained injuries. In the claim petition, the claimant has stated that he is working as an employee under respondent No.1. The owner of granite slabs has purchased the granite slaps and he has made an arrangement to transport the same and in that lorry, the claimant was travelling along with the goods as an authorized representative of owner but not in the cabin, but on the loaded granite slaps. Therefore, even though, the claimant was employee under respondent No.1, but he has been instructed to unload the granite slaps to its destination. Therefore, while considering the evidence on record, the claimant also had travelled on the loaded granite slaps being an authorized representative of the goods to unload the same to its destination. There might have been other five persons travelling on the track, but the claim petition is filed by the claimant alone. Therefore, necessarily the claimant has filed the claim petition for compensation being an authorized

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶39

representative of the goods or owner of the goods and also being employee of respondent No.1. The owner of granite slaps after purchasing the same might have instructed the claimant to travel along with the goods. Therefore, it is proved that the claimant has travelled in the truck being an authorized representative of the goods.

¶40

As per Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act, the risk of the claimant is covered. In this regard, the findings given by the Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is set aside. Therefore, the Insurance Company shall indemnify the owner of the truck and pay compensation to the claimant.

¶41

In the present case, the claimant has

¶42

suffered fracture of 2^nd and 3^rd metacarpal bones.

¶43

The Tribunal has awarded compensation

¶44

under various heads as follows:

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶46

1	Pain and sufferings	Rs.	50,000/-
2	Medical expenses	Rs.	14,780/-
3	Incidental charges	Rs.	6,200/-
4	Loss of income during hospitalization	Rs.	20,736/-
5	Loss of amenities & expectations	Rs.	5,000/-
6	conveyance	Rs.	2,000/-
	Total	Rs.	98,716/-

¶47

The compensation awarded under the heads pain and suffering and medical expenses are found to be correct and it is kept in tact.

¶48

The compensation of Rs.12,000/- is awarded under the head incidental expenses such as food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges etc.,

¶49

The compensation of Rs.13,000/- is

¶50

awarded under the head loss of amenities & expectation.

¶51

The accident is caused in the year 2014.

¶52

Therefore, notional income would be taken at Rs.8,500/per month. The compensation of Rs.25,500/- (Rs.8,500/-

¶53

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶54

pm., x 3 months) is awarded under the head loss of

¶55

income during laid up period.

¶56

Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant is

¶57

entitled to total compensation under various heads as

¶58

follows:

¶59

1	Pain and sufferings	Rs.	50,000/-	Kept in tact
2	Medical expenses	Rs.	14,780/-	Kept in tact
3	Incidental expenses such as food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges etc.,	Rs.	12,000/-
4	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.	25,500/-
5	Loss of amenities & expectations	Rs.	13,000/-
	Total	Rs.	1,15,280/-

¶60

The Tribunal has awarded compensation of

¶61

Rs.98,716/-, but the appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,15,280/- . Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.16,564/- (Rs.1,15,280/- - Rs.98,716/-). Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.16,564/- along with interest at the

¶62

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶63

rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶64

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the

¶65

following

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The appeal is allowed in part . ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.01.2017 passed in MVC.No.391/2015 by the MACT and I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, is modified.

¶68

iii. The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.16,564/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶69

iv. The Insurance Company shall indemnify the owner of the truck and pay compensation to the claimant.

¶70

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:2688 MFA No. 4217 of 2017

¶71

v. No order as to costs.

¶72

vi. Registry is directed to transmit the TCR along with copy of this order to the Tribunal forthwith.

¶73

vii. Draw award accordingly.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Nagaraja v. Arun Kumar S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraja v. Arun Kumar S

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

Sri K Chandrappa Vs Ramesh

Ningegowda Vs Pushpalatha S

Sri.S. Pramod Vs Smt. S. Ramya

Pradeep Kumar M S Vs Gowramma

M/S. Shanti Collection Vs Sri. Chandrakantharaju

Sri D Narayanaswamy Vs the Managing Director