Irappa S/O Shankreppa Angadi Vs Gurupadappa S/O Bhimappa Gadagoli

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100554 OF 2015 (MV-I)

¶5

C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100262 OF 2015

¶6

IN MFA NO. 100554 OF 2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., EXTENSION COUTNER, GADAG P.C.A & R.D. BANK BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, GADAG NOW REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, IIND FLOOR, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580020.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADV)

¶11

AND:

¶12

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHRI. IRAPPA S/O SHANKREPPA ANGADI AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE (NOW NIL), R/O: MAHANTESHNAGAR, RAMDURG, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

SHRI. GURUPADAPPA BHIMAPPA GADAGOLI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GADAGOLI, POST: HOLEMANNUR, TQ: RON, DIST GADAG.

¶16

(OWNER OF THE AUTO-RICKSHAW BEARING NO.KA-26/6957)

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H M DHARIGOND, ADV FOR C/R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.666/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MEMBER,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ADDL. MACT, RAMDURGA, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,39,000/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATED OF FILING THE PETITION TILL REALISATION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT.

¶23

IN MFA NO. 100262 OF 2015

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI. IRAPPA S/O SHANKREPPA ANGADI AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHANTESH NAGAR, RAMDURGA, TQ: RAMDURGA, DIST: BELGAUM

¶26

… APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI. H.M. DHARIGOND, ADV)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SHRI. GURUPADAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA GADAGOLI AGE. MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. GADAGOLI, POST: HOLEMANNUR, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.

¶30

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, EXTENSION COUNTER GADAG, PCA AND RD BANK BUILDING, 1^ST FLOOR, GADAG.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶33

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.09.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.666/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, ADDL. MACT, RAMDURG, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶34

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶36

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶39

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶40

These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 26.09.2014, passed in M.V.C No.666/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl. M.A.C.T., Ramdurga.

¶41

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

¶42

On 12.01.2010, the petitioner had gone to attend Badami Banashankari Jatra. He boarded the auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-26/6957, which was proceeding towards Belur. The driver of the said auto rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, he dashed against the barricades put up by the Police. Due to which, the petitioner sustained the grievous injuries. He incurred huge medical expenses. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’, for short), seeking

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶47

The owner of the auto rickshaw filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. It is also contended that the policy was valid as of the date of the accident and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the auto rickshaw.

¶48

The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and it is contended that the driver of the offending Auto did not possess a valid and effective license and that the vehicle was plying outside the permit limit. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions and the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

¶52

The petitioner, to substantiate his case,

¶53

examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 21 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-21. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined its official as RW-1, and marked 3 documents as Exs.D-1 to D-3.

¶54

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 26.09.2014 and held that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,39,000/-

¶55

with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization, and held that the owner and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the liability, filed an appeal in M.F.A.No.100554/2015. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed an appeal in M.F.A. No.100262/2015.

¶59

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the petitioner.

¶60

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Rickshaw/vehicle was plying outside the permit limit. Hence, there is a breach of policy conditions, and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, and dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶61

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the vehicle was to ply outside the permit limits, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. To buttress his argument, he has

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of

¶65

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rizwana Begum and another in M.F.A. No.32734/2013, disposed of on 24.03.2022 . He also submits that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner and dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶66

Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶67

The points that would arise for consideration are regarding the liability and the quantum of the compensation.

¶68

There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the road traffic accident. To prove the accident, the petitioner has produced a certified copy of a charge sheet

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

marked as Ex.P-6. The Tribunal, based on Ex.P-6, has rightly recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal insofar as the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned.

¶72

Regarding liability:

¶73

The Insurance Company has taken a specific defense that the vehicle was plying outside the permit limit and there was no permit limit, outside permit limit. Admittedly, the vehicle had a valid permit, but it was taken beyond the permit limit. There is a difference between the two. If there is no permit at all, or if the transport vehicle is used for a purpose not allowed by the permit as envisaged under Section 150(2)(a)(i)(c) of the M.V. Act, the insurance company need not indemnify the liability of the insurer for a violation of the policy conditions. However, where the vehicle is taken beyond the permit limits, it cannot be said that there is a violation of policy conditions; it is a

¶74

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

contravention of the permit conditions, which is punishable under Section 192A of the M.V. Act. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Rizwana Begum referred supra is aptly applicable to the case on hand. Hence, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. I do not find any error in saddling the liability jointly and severally, and therefore, I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the point of liability.

¶77

Regarding quantum of compensation:

¶78

The petitioner contended that he was an

¶79

agriculturist and used to earn Rs.10,000/- p.m. Because of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident, he has suffered a permanent disability. To prove permanent disability, he examined the doctor as PW-2, who deposed that, he examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and issued the disability certificate. He has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent partial disability of 60%. The doctor has not opined regarding the permanent

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

disability to the whole body, wherein, the Tribunal has taken the disability at 20%. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the evidence of PW-2, this Court reassesses the compensation. The accident occurred in 2010. The Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.2,000/- p.m. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the income as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. As per the schedule, for the accident occurred in 2010, Rs.5,500/- is to be taken as monthly income. Thus, this Court re-assesses the monthly income at Rs.5,500/- and disability at 50%. The petitioner is aged about 60 years old as of the date of the accident. The applicable multiplier to the age group of the petitioner is 9. Accordingly, the loss of future earning capacity is calculated as follows:

¶84

Rs.5,500 X 12 X 9 X 50% = 2,97,000/-

¶85

In view of the above discussions, this Court reassesses the compensation under the following heads:

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

Sl.No.	HEADS	AMOUNT
1.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 50,000/-
2.	Loss of amenities	Rs.40,000/-
3.	Medical expenses	Rs.40,000/-
4.	Conveyance, attendant charges and specialdiet	Rs.30,000/-
5.	Loss of future income	Rs.2,97,000/-
6.	Loss of income during laid up period	Rs.30,000/-
	Total	Rs.4,87,000/-
Less:	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.1,39,000/-
	Enhanced compensation	Rs.3,48,000/-

¶90

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total

¶91

compensation of Rs.4,87,000/- as against Rs.1,39,000/i.e., enhanced compensation of Rs.3,48,000/-.

¶92

In view of the above discussions, I proceed to

¶93

pass the following order:

¶94

ORDER

¶95

(i) M.F.A.No.100554/2015 filed by the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed.

¶96

(ii) M.F.A.No.100262/2015 filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.

¶97

(iii) The judgment and award dated 26.09.2014, passed in M.V.C No.666/2011 by the learned

¶98

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11878 MFA No. 100554 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100262 of 2015

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

Senior Civil Judge and Addl. M.A.C.T., Ramdurga, is modified.

¶101

(iv) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,48,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶102

(v) The owner and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle are held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with accrued interest to the petitioner.

¶103

(vi) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶104

(vii) The office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit and the trial Court records to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.

¶105

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶106

NAA CT: BSB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Irappa S/O Shankreppa Angadi v. Gurupadappa S/O Bhimappa Gadagoli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irappa S/O Shankreppa Angadi v. Gurupadappa S/O Bhimappa Gadagoli

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Hariram S/O Prabharam Choudhary Vs Umesh S/O Chandrakant Dattawade

Chidanand S/O Nagendra Wadekar Vs Ratnabai W/O Balakrishna@Balappa Pisse

Narayan Chudappa Yallurkar Vs Manjula Maruti Hadimani

Saraswathi W/O Late Hanumanthappa Huvakkanavar Vs the United India Insurance Co.Ltd

Shriram General Insurance Area, Vs Prakash S/O Lakshamappa Eliger @ Iliger

Linganagouda S/O Ramanagouda Kashappagoudar Vs Anand S/O Siddappa Shinde