Insurance company appeal and claimant's cross-objection against a motor accident award. The court held a driver licensed for LMV could drive the light goods vehicle under Mukund Dewangan, found compensation broadly adequate despite errors under some heads, and dismissed both the appeal and cross-objection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662 MFA No. 100520 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100520 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100013 OF 2024
IN MFA NO. 100520 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, IIND FLOOR, DHAMNEKAR ARCHADE, B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 001, NOW REP BY BALAKRISHNA K. NAYAK, DEPUTY MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, OPP. HDMC, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by ROHAN HADIMANI T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 03.11.2015, PASSED IN MVC.NO.1145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDITIONAL MOTOR
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662 MFA No. 100520 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,82,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS PAYMENT WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
IN MFA CROB NO. 100013 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA NAIK, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O. HANDIGANUR, TAL & DIST: BELGAUM.
…CROSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA.CROB IN MFA NO.100520/2016 FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 22 OF CPC READ WITH SECTION 173(1) OF M.V. ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.11.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1145/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL AND CROB, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662 MFA No. 100520 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
JUDGMENT
MFA No.100520/2016 is filed by the appellant-insurance company and MFA Crob.No.100013/2024 is filed by appellantclaimant challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.1145/2014. Both the appeal as well as the cross objection are arising out of the judgment and award dated 03.11.2015 passed in MVC No.1145/2014 on the file of the XI Addl. District Judge & Addl. MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘Tribunal’).
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.S.Koliwad for the appellant/insurance company and learned counsel Sri.Ashok A.Naik, for the cross-objector/claimant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed grave error in saddling the liability on the insurance company as the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and motor vehicle non transport. Admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident is light goods vehicle. The driver was not having the endorsement on his driving licence to drive the goods vehicle. Hence, he seeks to saddle the liability on the owner of the vehicle. It is further
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662 MFA No. 100520 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the disability of the injured at 20% placing reliance on the evidence of PW-2 Doctor, who is in the habit of giving disability certificate on higher side. Hence, he seeks to reassess the same at 13% and modify the compensation accordingly.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the crossobjector/claimant supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submits that insofar as the issue with regard to the driving licence is concerned, the said issue is no more res integra , as it is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited1 , hence, the Tribunal is justified in saddling the liability on the insurance company.
He further submits that though the Tribunal has assessed the disability on higher side, but the award of compensation by the Tribunal under the heads of pain & suffering, loss of income during the laid-up period is on the lower side and the Tribunal has also not awarded any compensation under the head of loss of amenities, etc., which requires to be re-assessed. Hence, he
1 AIR 2017 SCC 3668
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662 MFA No. 100520 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
seeks to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company by allowing the cross-objection filed by the claimant.
5. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record including the Tribunal records.
6. The claimant met with the accident on 02.03.2014 and sustained fracture of tibia & fibula. PW-2, who is not a treated doctor, has entered the witness box and deposed that the claimant has sustained 40% disability to the whole body, considering his evidence, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 20%. In my considered view, taking note of the injuries sustained by the claimant, the assessment of disability by the Tribunal is on the higher side.
7. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence available
on record and after assessing the notional income of the claimant-injured and taking note of the award of compensation by the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager compensation under the head of loss of pain & suffering, loss of income during laid-
up period and the compensation is required to be awarded
under the head of loss of amenities, if the said compensation is awarded by re-assessing the same in favour of the claimantcross objector, then it would be more or less the same compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to modify the compensation by reducing or enhancing the same.
8. Insofar as the issue of not having driving licence to drive the vehicle in question is concerned, the said issue is no more res integra as the same is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited , referred supra. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was light goods vehicle having weight less than 7500 kg. Admittedly, the driver on wheels was having the licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV). In view of the enunciation of law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited referred supra, the contention of the insurance company is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6662 MFA No. 100520 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 100013 of 2024
9. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, both the appeal filed by the insurance company as well as the cross objection filed by the cross objector are dismissed.
The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/JUDGE
BSR Ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an insurer is liable where the driver held only an LMV licence but drove a light goods vehicle.
Whether the Tribunal's assessment of disability at 20% and compensation awarded was excessive or inadequate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company LimitedRelied on¶8
AIR 2017 SCC 3668 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Sri. Anil S/o. Mallappa Naik
Sri. Bharat S/o. Jyotiba Badavannache
Vijaykumar A.Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
