M/S Hdfc Ergo General Vs Erappa @ Veerappa

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101915 OF 2016 C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103200 OF 2017

¶7

IN MFA NO.101915/2016: BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, ANANTAPUR ROAD, BALLARI, NOW REP. BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, THE H.D.F.C., ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., IST FLOOR, VIRUPAXA BUILDING, OPPOSITE TO KIMS MAIN GATE, P.B. ROAD, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI-590021.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

ERAPPA @ VEERAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. LORRY DRIVER, R/O. SIDDARTHA NAGAR, CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583101.

¶15

MAHESH S/O. YALLAPPA UMMANNAVAR, OCC. DRIVER OF THE LORRY, BEARING REG.NO.KA-37/A-144, R/O. ADAVI SOMAPUR VILLAGE, GADAG TALUK AND DISTRICT-582101.

¶16

M/S. FAROOQ ROAD LINES BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. SIRAJ AHAMED P. BIJAPUR,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

@ S.P. BIJAPUR ARSHAD OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-37/A-144, R/O. MANZIL HOUSE, NO.1772, 1^ST CROSS, RAJEEV NAGAR, BALLARI-583101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-NOTICE SERVED)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.627/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.4,43,840/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALISATION.

¶24

IN MFA NO.103200/2017: BETWEEN:

¶25

ERAPPA @ VEERAPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. LORRY DRIVER, R/O. SIDDARTHA NAGAR, CANTONMENT, BALLARI-583101.

¶26

…APPELLANT

¶27

(BY SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

MAHESH S/O. YALLAPPA UMMANNAVAR, OCC. DRIVER OF THE LORRY,

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶31

3 -

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

BEARING REG.NO.KA-37/A-144, R/O. ADAVI SOMAPUR VILLAGE, GADAG TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶34

M/S. FAROOQ ROAD LINES BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. SIRAJ AHAMED P. BIJAPUR, @ S.P. BIJAPUR ARSHAD OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG.NO.KA-37/A-144, R/O. MANZIL HOUSE, NO.1772, 1^ST CROSS, RAJEEV NAGAR, BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT-583101.

¶35

M/S. HDFC ERGP GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS MANAGER ANANTAPUR ROAD, BALLARI-583101.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶38

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.03.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.627/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-II, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶39

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

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

¶45

MFA 101915 of 2016 is filed by the insurance

¶46

company, and MFA 103200 of 2017 is filed by the claimant. These appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 16.03.2016 passed in MVC No.627 of 2012 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari. (for short the ‘ Tribunal ’)

¶47

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

¶48

On 12.08.2011, the claimant being the driver of the lorry bearing registration number KA.37/A.145 at Jindal factory, Thorangallu, was proceeding with the load of cement to unload the same at Shivamogga, and when the claimant had stopped the lorry on the proper side of the road to fill the diesel at Bharat Petroleum Bunk, Kurekuppa, at about 8:30 PM, at that time, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA.37/A-144 came in a reverse direction at a great speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed to the claimant.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. It is contended that claimant spent a huge amount towards medical and the other expenses. It is contended that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in Crime No. 85 of 2011 of Gadiganur Police Station. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

¶52

The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle filed their written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the driver of the lorry possessed a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. It is contended that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount claimed by the claimant. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle.

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, there is violation of the policy conditions. It is contended that the owner of the offending vehicle entrusted the vehicle to the person who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company.

¶56

The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties,

¶57

framed the relevant issues.

¶58

The claimant, to substantiate his case ,examined himself as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 23 documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.23. In rebuttal, the Manager (legal) of the Insurance Company was examined as RW1, one witness was examined as RW2, and marked 3 documents as Exhibits R1 to R3.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

The Tribunal after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgement dated 16.03.2016 and awarded a compensation of ₹4,43,840/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. It is also held that the respondents i.e., the owner, the driver and the insurance company of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and the insurance company was directed to deposit the compensation amount.

¶62

The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, filed an appeal in MFA No.101915 of 2016 challenging the liability, and the claimant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal filed an appeal in MFA No.103200 of 2017.

¶63

Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company and the claimant.

¶64

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that as of the date of the accident the driver of the

¶65

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and as of the date of the accident, the licence was not renewed, there is a breach of policy conditions. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have directed the insurance company to pay and recover. But on the contrary, the tribunal fastened the liability jointly and severally. He also submits that the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, on these ground s he prays to allow the appeal filed by the insurance company, and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant.

¶68

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that, before the date of the accident, the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence. Admittedly, as of the date of the accident, the licence was not renewed. He submits that non-renewal of license by itself is not a ground to exonerate the liability. To buttress his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagappa @ Nagaraja and others v. Ravi Kupaluru

¶69

and others in MFA 103680 of 2015 and connected matter disposed off, on 08.02.2019. Hence, he submits that the

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He submits that, to prove the disability, the claimant examined the Doctor as PW2 who opined that the claimant suffered a permanent disability to an extent of 45% to the whole body. He submits that the claimant was the driver and because of the disability the claimant is unable to drive the heavy vehicle s . Hence, he submits that the appeal filed by the insurance company be dismissed, and allow the appeal filed by the claimant.

¶73

Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The point that would arise for consideration is regarding the liability and the quantum of compensation.

¶74

It is not in dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal, considering the Ex. P-2- a charge sheet which has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, has rightly recorded a finding that the

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶78

Regarding liability : The insurance company has taken a specific defence in a statement of objections that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a driving licence before the date of the accident however as of the date of the accident, the licence had expired. To consider the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company, the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the said issue in Nagappa’s case (supra) wherein this Court at paragraph 27 has held as under.

¶79

“ 27. ....mere fact that the driver of the vehicle had not got his driving licence renewed on the date of the accident and got it renewed subsequently would not amount to breach of condition of the policy as it cannot be said that there was violation of the condition of the policy...”

¶80

Admittedly, in the instant case, before the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence but as of the date of the accident, the licence was not renewed; However,

¶81

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

subsequently, it was renewed. Considering the proposition laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case supra , the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally. I do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the point of liability. I concur with the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding the liability. Accordingly, the point regarding the liability is answered accordingly.

¶84

16. Regarding quantum of compensation: The

¶85

claimant has contended that he was working as a lorry driver and used to earn ₹8,500/- per month. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has not produced any income proof. In the absence of income proof, the income has to be taken as per the schedule notified by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority. The accident occurred in 2011, and the income is taken at ₹6,000/- per month. The claimant, to prove the disability examined the doctor as PW2 who has examined the claimant clinically and radiology, and opined that the claimant has suffered a disability to an extent of 45% to the whole body. Considering the evidence of the doctor, this Court

¶86

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

reassess es the disability at 40%. The claimant is aged 29 years old as of the date of the accident. The Appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of the claimant is ‘17’. As per the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% future prospects is to be added to his notional income, i.e., Rs.6,000+ Rs.2,400 = Rs.8,400/-. Thus, the monthly income of petitioner is taken at Rs.8,400/Considering the evidence of PW2, and the medical records, this Court re-assess the compensation under the following

¶89

heads:

¶90

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.	Compensation re-assessed by this Court Rs.
1	Pain and suffering	80,000/-	1,25,000/-
2	Medical expenses	17,836/-	17,836/-
3	Loss of income during laid up period (Rs.8,400/-x4 months)	10,000/-	33,600/-
4	Loss of future income (Rs.8,400x12x17x40%)	3,06,000/-	6,85,440/-
5	Future medical expenses	20,000/-	20,000/-
6	Loss of amenities	10,000/-	30,000/-
	TOTAL	4,43,836/-	9,11,876/-

¶91

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

The claimant is entitled to the re-assessed compensation of Rs.9,11,876/- as against Rs.4,43,836/- as awarded by the Tribunal, i.e., an enhanced compensation of Rs.4,68,040/-. In view of the same, the point regarding quantum of compensation is answered accordingly.

¶94

In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

¶95

ORDER

¶96

i. The Appeal filed by the insurance company in MFA No. 101915 of 2016 is dismissed.

¶97

ii. The Appeal filed by the claimant in MFA NO. 103200/2017 is allowed in part.

¶98

iii. The judgment and award dated 16.03.2016 passed in MVC No.627 of 2012 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Ballari, is modified.

¶99

iv. The claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹4,68,040 with interest at 6%

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11365 MFA No. 101915 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 103200 of 2017

¶101

14 -

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment.

¶104

v. The owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

¶105

vi. 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 judgment.

¶106

The office is directed to transmit amount in deposit and

¶107

the TCR to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶108

Draw an award accordingly.

¶109

Sd/(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE

¶110

Kmv CT:PA

M/S Hdfc Ergo General v. Erappa @ Veerappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hdfc Ergo General v. Erappa @ Veerappa

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

Krishna, S/O. Shrinivas Deshpande, Vs Sangeeta, W/O. Rajshekar Lakamanhalli

Shantappa S/O. Sharanappagouda Police Patil Vs Irappa S/O. Shankarappa Kadappanavar

Bheemappa S/O Sabu Alagundi, Vs the M.D., N.W.K.R.T.C.

M/S. Kallinatheshwar Stone Crushing Vs the Joint Registrar of

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Shri. Rama @ Ramachandra S/O Nagesh Hurude

Smt. Mallamma W/O S Mallappa Vs Mohammed Ansari S/O Hasamuddin Ansari