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

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100538 OF 2015

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100941 OF 2015

¶8

IN MFA NO. 100538 OF 2015

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRAKASH S/O LAKSHAMAPPA ELIGER @ ILIGER, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALAHONNATTI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SHIVANAGU S/O PRAKASHAPPA BAKKANNANAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DEVAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: HAVERI.

¶15

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶16

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E-8, RICCO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITA PURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE-302 022.

¶18

ASHOK S/O SAHADEVAPPA GUDAGI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. DEVAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: HAVERI (POLICY HOLDER OF THE TATA MAGIC VEHICLE BEARING REG NO.KA-27/A-3607).

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 & R3 ARE SERVED)

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶22

2 -

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.12.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.945/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, RANEBENNUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶25

IN MFA NO. 100941 OF 2015

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE AREA, SITAPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN STATE. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO.KA-27/A-3607), NOW REPTD., BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., LEGAL CELL, E-8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPUR JAIPUR-302022, RAJASTHAN STATE.

¶28

…APPELLANT

¶29

(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADV)

¶30

AND:

¶31

PRAKASH S/O LAKSHAMAPPA ELIGER @ ILIGER, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O: HALAHONNATTI VILLAGE IN RANEBENNUR TALUK, DIST: HAVERI.

¶32

SHIVANAGU S/O PRAKASHAPPA BAKKANNANAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DEVAGERI VILLAGE IN HAVERI TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶33

ASHOK S/O SAHADEVAPPA GUDAGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DEVAGERI VILLAGE IN HAVERI DISTRICT (POLICY HOLDER OF

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

THE TATA MAGIC VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KA-27/A-3607)

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 & R3 SERVED)

¶39

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED:22.12.2014, PASSED IN MVC. NO.945/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, RANEBENNUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,10,400/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 7% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TIL ITS REALIZATION.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶43

These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 22.12.2014 passed in MVC No.945/2013 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, and M.A.C.T. Ranebennur (for short, ‘ the Tribunal ’)

¶44

Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these appeals

¶45

are as follows:

¶46

On 01.10.2013, at about 10:45 hours, the petitioner was proceeding in a maxi cab bearing registration

¶47

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

number KA.27/A.3607 from Haveri DC Office towards Haveri Town as an authorized passenger. The driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He spent a huge amount on medical expenses and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶50

A notice was issued. Despite the service of a notice, the Policy holder of the offending vehicle remained unrepresented and was placed exparte before the tribunal.

¶51

The RC owner appeared through counsel and filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver possessed a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident and the policy was valid. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶52

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

¶55

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

¶56

The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1, examined the doctor as PW2, and marked 34 documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.34. In rebuttal, the owner of the said vehicle examined himself as RW.1 and the officials of the insurance company were examined as RWs.2 and 3, and marked 6 documents as Exhibits R.1 to R.6.

¶57

The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part with costs vide judgment dated 22.12.2014 and awarded a compensation of ₹2,10,400/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of the petition till its realization and held the owner, the policy holder and the insurance company of the

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. The insurance company, being aggrieved regarding the fastening of the liability by the Tribunal filed an appeal in MFA No.100941 of 2015 and the petitioner ,being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed an appeal in MFA No.100538 of 2015.

¶61

Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶62

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. There is a breach of policy conditions and the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurance company. 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 to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a light motor vehicle license and he, having possessed LMV licence, can drive a transport vehicle. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3668. He submits that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount He also submits that the petitioner, to prove the disability, examined the doctor as PW.2, who has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 40%, whereas the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10%. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the insurance company and to allow the appeal filed by the petitioner by enhancing the compensation.

¶66

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

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation.

¶70

Regarding liability : There is no dispute regarding

¶71

the occurrence of the accident, and the petitioner having sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident. The petitioner has produced a charge-sheet marked as Exhibit P.8, which discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶72

The insurance company has taken a specific defense in the statement of objections that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The insurance company has produced the driving licence marked as Exhibit R.1, which discloses that the driver possessed a LMV license. As per the definition of the “light motor vehicle” as defined under Section 2(21) of the Act, it would include the transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Section 2(15) and Section 2(48) of the Act. The said transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of LMV by virtue of

¶73

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

Amendment Act of 54 of 1994. The said issue arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and is no more res integra as it is covered by the judgment of three judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, a person possessing a licence to drive LMV is competent to drive a transport vehicle and further held that no further endorsement is required to drive a transport vehicle . The Hon'ble Apex Court has reaffirmed the judgment of the Mukund Dewangan (supra) in the case of Jagdish Kumar Sood v. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in AIR 2018 SC 2906 holding that, the driver of the offending vehicle holding a licence to drive LMV is competent to drive the transport vehicle.

¶76

The Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability jointly and severally. I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, and accordingly, I concur with the Tribunal on the point of liability.

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

Regarding quantum of compensation : The

¶80

petitioner was aged 28 years old as of the date of the accident. The petitioner, contended that he was an agriculturist and used to earn ₹10,000/- per month. To prove his income, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the notional income has to be taken into consideration as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2013. The income of the petitioner is taken at ₹7,000/- per month. The petitioner to prove the disability examined the doctor as PW.2, who deposed that he examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and assessed the permanent physical disability to an extent of 40 percent i.e., 15% to his right hand and 25% to his right knee joint, and the disability assessed by the doctor has been disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal has assessed the disability at 10%. Considering the evidence of PW.2 and the medical records, this Court reassesses the disability at 20%. This Court reassesses the compensation under the following heads:

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.	Compensation re-assessed by this Court Rs.
1	Pain and suffering	25,000/-	40,000/-
2	Medical expenses	66,560/-	66,560/-
3	Diet, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges	3,000/-	10,000/-
4	Loss of income during the laid-up period	12,000/-	21,000/-
5	Loss of future income due to disability (7000x12x17x20%)	91,800/-	2,85,600/-
6	Loss of amenities	10,000/-	30,000/-
7	Future medical expenses	2,000/-	5,000/-
	TOTAL	2,10,360/- rounded of to 2,10,400/-	4,58,160/-

¶85

The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of

¶86

₹4,58,160/- as against ₹2,10,400/- awarded by the Tribunal.

¶87

Thus, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to

¶88

pass the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. The Appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No.100941/2015 is dismissed.

¶91

ii. The Appeal filed by the petitioner in MFA No.100538/2015 is allowed in part.

¶92

12 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12385 MFA No. 100538 of 2015 C/W MFA No. 100941 of 2015

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

iii. The judgment and award dated 22.12.2014 passed in MVC No.945/2013 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. Ranebennur, is hereby modified. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹2,47,760/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization.

¶96

iv. The insurance company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with accrued interest within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order judgment.

¶97

The amount in deposit and the TCR be transmitted to

¶98

the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.

¶99

Draw the award accordingly.

¶100

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶101

kmv

¶102

CT: BSB

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

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