Sri Harish T K Vs Vinod

SRI HARISH T.K., S/O LATE KEMPAIAH T.V. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO. 184, T.BEGUR, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 562 123.

¶14

…APPELLANT

¶15

(BY SRI. KALYAN R, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

VINOD

¶19

S/O. MUNIRAJU, AGED MAJOR, R/AT NO.2, KANAVEPURA VILLAGE, HEGGADIHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 201.

¶20

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR,

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

SENTINARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. H S LINGARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 26/11/2014, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:2.9.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.541/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, (SCCH-18), BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

IN MFA NO. 10321/2013

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.28, 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS MANAGAR (CLAIMS).

¶31

...APPELLANT

¶32

(BY SRI. LINGARAJU H.S.,ADVOCATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

HARISH T K, NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE KEMPAIAH T.V., R/AT NO.184, T.BEGUR, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

VINOD, MAJOR, S/O MUNIRAJU, R/AT NO.2, KANAVEPURA VILLAGE, HEGGADIHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2,

¶41

R2-SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶42

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.541/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.2,59,294/WITH INTEREST @ 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

¶43

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

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶45

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶46

These appeals arise out of judgment and award dated 2^nd September 2013, passed by the III Addl.Senior

¶47

Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru City, (SCCH-18), (for

¶48

short `Tribunal'), in MVC No.541/2012. MFA.No.1746/2014 is filed by the claimant for

¶49

4 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

enhancement of the compensation and

¶53

MFA.No.10321/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company challenging fastening of liability on the insurer to pay the compensation. Both appeals arise out of common

¶54

judgment and hence taken up together for disposal.

¶55

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

¶56

It is the case of the claimant that on 06.10.2011, around 1.30 p.m., while he was going on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-41-R-3364 towards Nandi Hills road, near Rangapa Circle of Chikkaballapura, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Appe autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-43-3146 (for short `offending vehicle'), by its driver. As a result of which, claimant sustained fracture of both bones in the right leg. He had taken treatment in Fortis Hospital, Bangalore, and spent more than Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has been suffering from permanent

¶57

5 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

disability, which has affected his earning capacity. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-.

¶61

Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent

¶62

No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 - insurer

¶63

denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also denied its liability to pay compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

¶64

From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

¶65

Claimant to prove his case, examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 14 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-14. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW-1 and marked two documents at Exs.R-1 and R-2.

¶66

The Tribunal after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence on record, awarded

¶67

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

compensation of Rs.2,59,294/-. The Tribunal assessed the

¶70

age of the claimant as 33 years; his earning as Rs.200/per day, applied the multiplier of `16', assessed the disability to an extent of 10% to the whole body and calculated the compensation. The Tribunal directed the respondent No.2-insurer to pay the compensation. The Tribunal awarded following compensation :

¶71

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and agony	35,000/-
Loss of income during laid of period, rest, nourishment and attendant charges	5,000/-
Medical expenses	76,094/-
Future medical expenses	10,000/-
Loss of future income	1,15,200/-
Loss of amenities	15,000/-
Conveyance	3,000/-
Total	Rs.2,59,294/-

¶72

Same is challenged in the present appeal by both the claimant and the insurer.

¶73

7 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶77

appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer.

¶78

9. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the income taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. As per the evidence of PW-2 doctor, the disability suffered by the claimant to whole body is 14.5%, but the Tribunal has taken disability as 10%. The compensation awarded under other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, prayed to enhance compensation.

¶79

Learned counsel for the respondent-insurer contends that at the time of the accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving license. He was authorised to drive light motor vehicle, but he was driving a transport vehicle. The owner violated the terms of policy. Therefore, insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against the insurer.

¶80

The learned counsel for the insurer further fairly submitted that in view of subsequent development in the

¶81

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶84

Mukund Dewangan -vs- Oriental Insurance Company

¶85

Limited¹ , which was upheld by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General

¶86

Insurance Company Limited -vs- Rambha Devi² , the contention of respondent No.2 may not survive at present. Therefore, prayed to pass suitable order accordingly.

¶87

Learned counsel for the insurer further submits

¶88

that Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 8% p.a., which is exorbitant and not permissible, therefore interest rate be reduced to 6% p.a.

¶89

13. Following points arises for consideration:

¶90

(i) Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

¶91

(ii) Whether the interest awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant?

¶92

1 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶93

2 (2025) 3 SCC 95

¶94

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

(iii) Whether fastening of liability on respondent No.2 to pay compensation by the Tribunal is justified?

¶97

(iv) What order?

¶98

Point Nos.1 and 2 :

¶99

It is not in dispute that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said autorickshaw. Tribunal after appreciation of the evidence, rightly held that accident had taken place due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and it does not call for any interference.

¶100

15. Claimant examined himself as PW-1. In his

¶101

evidence, he has reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. He stated the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question and the disability affecting his day-to-

¶102

day work. He examined PW-2 Medical Officer, who was summoned to produce the records. The said records are

¶103

marked as Exs.P-10 to P-12. He examined PW-3 Dr.B.Ramesh to prove his disability. According to his

¶104

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

evidence, claimant suffered permanent disability to an extent of 29% in the right lower limb and 14.5% to the whole body. Claimant has produced necessary medical records in this regard.

¶107

The medical records reveal that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and he took treatment as an inpatient for five days. The said fractures are united.

¶108

Claimant has not proved that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Therefore, his national income has to be assessed. He was aged about 32 to 33 years at the time of the accident. As per the chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the notional income of the victim of an accident of the year 2011 could be taken as Rs.6,500/- per month. Same can be applied to the facts of the present case.

¶109

There is no dispute in respect of age of the claimant. Therefore, the suitable multiplier applicable is

¶110

11 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

`16' as per Sarla Verma -vs- Delhi Transport Corporation

¶114

and others,³ . PW-3 doctor has stated that permanent disability of the claimant to the right lower limb is 29% and 15% to the whole body, which is not consistent with ALEMCO Manual or Gazette published by the Central Government. Moreover, if there is any disability to the lower limb, 1/3^rd of the same shall be considered as disability to the whole body. Ho wever, the Tribunal looking at the facts of the case, decided the permanent disability at 10%, which is proper and just.

¶115

Further, looking at the nature of injuries and the treatment taken by the claimant, the amount of compensation awarded under other heads are on the lower side, which needs enhancement.

¶116

20. Accordingly, following amount of compensation is awarded:

¶117

3 (2009) 6 SCC 121

¶118

12 -

¶119

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

Particulars	Amount in Rs.
Pain and suffering	35,000/-
Loss of income during laid of period, rest, nourishment and attendant charges	19,500/-
(Rs.6,500/- x 3)
Medical expenses	76,094/-
Future medical expenses	25,000/-
Loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability	1,24,800/-
(Rs.6,500/- x 12 x 16 x 10%)
Loss of amenities	25,000/-
Special diet and conveyance charges	15,000/-
Total	Rs.3,20,394/-

¶122

Thus, the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.61,100/-.

¶123

The Tribunal at its wisdom considered the facts and awarded 8% interest per annum. It is the discretion of the Tribunal to award interest. It is not exorbitant. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. However, in respect

¶124

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

of enhanced amount, the rate of interest will be 6% p.a.

¶127

from the date of petition till the date of its realization.

¶128

In view of the above discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

¶129

Point No.3 :

¶130

It is the contention of the insurer that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. Undisputedly, driver of the offending vehicle was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, but not transport vehicle. He was driving the light motor vehicle (transport). There is no proper endorsement of the RTO on the said licence. On this technical ground, respondent No.2 insurer earlier disowning its liability to pay the compensation.

¶131

As fairly submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) and in the case of Rambha Devi (supra), the

¶132

14 -

¶133

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

driver, who was authorized to drive light motor nontransport vehicle, can drive light motor transport vehicle without necessary endorsement of the concerned RTO on the said licence and on that ground, insurer cannot disown its liability to pay compensation. The law laid down in the said judgments is applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶136

In view of the said reasons, I answer point No.3 in the affirmative.

¶137

2 5. Undisputedly, the respondent No.1 being the

¶138

owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are liable to pay the said amount.

¶139

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶140

ORDER

¶141

i) MFA.No.1746/2014 filed by the claimant is allowed in-part and MFA.No.10321/2013 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.

¶142

15 -

¶143

NC: 2025:KHC:19499 MFA No. 1746 of 2014 C/W MFA No. 10321 of 2013

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

ii) The judgment and award dated 2^nd September 201 3, passed in MVC.No.541/2012, by the Court of III Addl.Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Bengaluru City (SCCH-18), s tands modified.

¶146

iii) The claimant is entitled to enhancement of Rs.61,100/along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till its realization.

¶147

iv) The Respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award.

¶148

v) The enhanced amount of compensation is meager, therefore, entire enhanced amount of compensation shall be released in favour of the claimant on proper identification.

¶149

vi) Whatever amount deposited by the insurer in MFA.No.10321/2013, shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimant.

¶150