Sri Somaiah Vs Sri Basavanna

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO PASS AWARD, ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION / MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.06.2015 PASSED IN MVC NO.312/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:40186 MFA No. 7675 of 2015

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA, AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION, AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

This appeal is by the appellant / claimant calling in question the judgment and award dated 08.06.2015, in MVC No.312/2010, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara on the ground of quantum and the liability.

¶31

The date of accident, involvement of the

¶32

vehicle, injuries suffered are not in dispute, the only dispute is with regard to the liability to pay the compensation, so also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶33

Heard Sri.Raju.S, learned counsel appearing for

¶34

the appellant and Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Notice of this appeal on

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:40186 MFA No. 7675 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

respondent No.1, held as sufficient, vide order dated 19.09.2019.

¶39

Sri. Raju.S with all vehemence submits that this appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal on two grounds i.e., i) the liability is fastened on the owner of the vehicle on the premise that there is no valid driving license which amounts to violation of policy condition and (ii) inadequate compensation.

¶40

So far as the compensation is concerned it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant has suffered seven simple injuries, as per Medical Certificate at Exhibits-P2, P7 to P10. The total Medical Bills as per Exhibit-P10 is Rs.2,850/-. The Tribunal has awarded a Global Compensation of Rs.20,000/- which is very meager and calls for interference.

¶41

So far as the liability is concerned, he submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu And Others -V- Vinod

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40186 MFA No. 7675 of 2015

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Kumar Lamba and Another¹ the Tribunal ought to have issued a direction to the insurance company primarily to satisfy the compensation, with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, sought to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation, so also modify the direction to respondent – Insurance Company to pay the compensation primarily with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶45

Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.B.A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Tribunal in the absence of any document to show that the injuries are grievous in nature and considering the fact that there are in all seven simple injuries and taking into consideration

¶46

the medical injuries at Rs.2,850/-, awarded global compensation of Rs.20,000/-, which does not call for any interference. So far as the liability is concerned, in view of the charge-sheet filed by the Police along with the final

¶47

1 (2018) 3 SCC 208

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40186 MFA No. 7675 of 2015

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

report invoking the provisions of Sections-3 and 181 of MV

¶51

Act 1988 which clearly shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid Driving License, shows that the owner of the vehicle entrusted the vehicle

¶52

with the driver, who was not possessing valid DL. In these circumstances, fastening is the liability on the owner of the vehicle is just and proper. Accordingly sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶54

parties, perused the entire appeal papers, so also the trial court records. The points of law that would arise for consideration of this Court are as under:

¶55

i) Whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the entire liability on the owner of the vehicle, to absolute exclusion of the insurance company in view of the principle of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu And Others -VVinod Kumar Lamba and Another ?

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:40186 MFA No. 7675 of 2015

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

ii) Whether the appellant has made out any case

¶60

for enhancement of compensation?

¶61

The answer of this Court for the above points for consideration are as follows:

¶62

Point No.(i) : Negative

¶63

Point No.(ii) : Partly affirmative, for the following

¶64

reasons:

¶65

REASONS

¶66

The point no.1 is no more res-integra in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pappu And Others -V- Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another² stated supra wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that whenever there is a third party claim, mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time or not themselves defenses available to the insurance

¶67

2 2018 SCC Online 23

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:40186 MFA No. 7675 of 2015

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

company primarily to pay and then recover from the insured. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Tribunal ought to have considered the case of the appellant by issuing a direction to the insurance company to make good the compensation, with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal has erred in this regard. Accordingly, the direction of the Tribunal is set-aside and modified, directing the insurance company primarily liable to pay the compensation with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

¶71

So far as the compensation awarded is

¶72

concerned, as per the documents produced by the appellant, he has suffered seven simple injuries. The medical expenses as per bills are Rs.2,850/-. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/as global compensation. Having considered the fact that there are 7 injuries, though they are simple in nature, considering the fact that the appellant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- for each

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:40186 MFA No. 7675 of 2015

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

injury, the same would come to Rs.35,000/-. So far as the medical expenses is concerned, it remains unaltered and considering the injuries, the appellant/claimant would not have been able to attend work for atleast a month. The year of accident being 2010, he is entitled for loss of income during laid up period and so also other discomforts. In view of the same, instead of awarding compensation under each heads as is normally awarded in the case of injury, additional sum of Rs.20,000/- globally if awarded would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- over and above as ordered by the Tribunal.

¶76

For the foregoing reasons, the points for consideration are answered accordingly and this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i) The appeal is allowed in part;

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:40186 MFA No. 7675 of 2015

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

ii) The appellant is entitled for in all a sum of

¶82

Rs.40,000/- as total compensation which shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶83

iii) Respondent No.2 – insurance company shall deposit the entire amount of compensation stated supra along with accrued interest, primarily, with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle;

¶84

iv) The amount directed above shall be deposited by the respondent No.2 – insurance company within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the concerned Tribunal;

¶85

v) No order as to cost.

¶86

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶87

JJ

¶88

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri Somaiah v. Sri Basavanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Somaiah v. Sri Basavanna

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

Sri. P. Ramesha Vs M. Mujeeb Ali

Dayananda Naik Vs Sri Akshay

The Divisional Manager Vs Harshitha

Punith S R Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Srinivasa K a Vs Sri Ragavendra P

H C Shivakumaraswamy Vs Managing Director