Pradeep v M Vs Reliance Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

RAMAKRISHNA B.N. S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGE MAJOR, NO 14, 2^ND FLOOR, 3^RD CROSS, CHIKKATOGURU GATE, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU-560100 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRADEEP B. ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 16.12.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46810 MFA No. 3340 of 2018

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.07.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.1685/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ACCMM AND MEMBER MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-24) PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is filed by the claimant, calling in question the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 24.07.2017 in MVC.No.1685/2015 passed by XXII Additional Small causes and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-24), on the ground of liability saddled on the owner of the vehicle, on the premise that there is no endorsement of transport license to drive LMV cab so also on quantum.

¶21

Heard Sri.Shantharaj.K, learned counsel

¶22

appearing for the appellant and Sri.Pradeep.B, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46810 MFA No. 3340 of 2018

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

Vide order dated 16.12.2024, notice to

¶26

respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶27

Sri.Shantharaj.K, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued mainly relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited¹ to contend that the license to drive a motor cab, the endorsement of transport license is not mandatory. In view of settled position of law, the insurer be made liable to pay compensation.

¶28

Further, he submits that in view of the injuries suffered, the compensation awarded under heads ‘pain and suffering’, ‘loss of amenities’ and towards ‘food nourishment and conveyance charges’ required to be enhanced.

¶29

Refuting the submissions of Sri. Shantharaj.K, Sri.Pradeep.B, submits that the Tribunal has properly

¶30

1 (2017) 14 SCC 663

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46810 MFA No. 3340 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

awarded the compensation and fastened the liability on the owner. However, Sri.Pradeep.B, learned counsel submits, that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan, requirement of endorsement of transport license has been obliterated.

¶34

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶35

Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan supra the finding of Tribunal on liability fastened on the owner is required to be set aside, holding that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation.

¶36

On perusal of wound certificate produced along with the evidence, the compensation under the following heads claimed by the appellant requires consideration and re-determination.

¶37

In summary on re-determination the

¶38

compensation under the heads claimed supra is as follows:

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46810 MFA No. 3340 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Sl.	Particulars		Rs.	Amount
No.
1.	Pain and Suffering	:	Rs.	30,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	:	Rs.	57,036/-
3.	Food and Nourishment expenses, Conveyance and Attendant Charges	:	Rs.	20,000/-
4.	Loss of future earnings	:	Rs.	1,95,048/-
5.	Loss of amenities of life	:	Rs.	30,000/-
	TOTAL	:	Rs.	3,32,084/-
	Round off		Rs.	3,32,100/-

¶42

The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.3,32,100/- as against Rs.3,02,084/awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Respondent No.1 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire re-determined compensation within Six Weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶43

For the forgoing reasons, this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The appeal is allowed in part .

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46810 MFA No. 3340 of 2018

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 24.07.2017 in MVC.No.1685/2015 passed by XXII Additional Small causes and XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH-24), is hereby modified, liability fastened on the owner is set-aside and the insurer is made liable to pay the compensation.

¶49

iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled for a re-determined compensation Rs,3,32,100/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.

¶50

iv) The respondent No.2 insurer shall deposit the re-determined compensation along with the accrued interest supra, before the concerned Tribunal, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:46810 MFA No. 3340 of 2018

¶52