Syed Thousif Ahmed Vs H S Siddaraju

SYED THOUSIF AHMED AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O SYED NAZEER AHMED RESIDING AT DOOR NO.33 THBLS LAYOUT, KADERENELLI POINT BANGALORE -21 PRESENTLY R/AT 90, 8^TH CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD, N.R. MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 007.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. S V ANGADI., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

H S SIDDARAJU S/O H SIDDACHARI AGEDA BOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT SHANMUNALU VILLAGE NEAR SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE BANNUR HOBI, T N PURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 007. (DRIVER OF THE CAR BEARING REG NO. KA-09-MF-9090).

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:21971-DB MFA No. 9747 of 2012

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

M/S JNANSAROVARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.580, 26^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE J P NAGAR, MYSORE-570008 (OWNER OF THE CAR BEARING REG NO. KA-09-MF-9090).

¶21

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD #2911, SUNDAR ARCADE, 2^ND FLOOR, B N ROAD, SUBURB BUS STAND, MYSORE-570008 (INSURER OF THE CAR BEARING REG NO. KA-09-MF-9090).

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3;

¶24

VIDE ORDER DATED 07.10.2014 NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)

¶25

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 6.1.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.939/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-2, MEMBER ADDITIONAL MACT, MYSORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:21971-DB MFA No. 9747 of 2012

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)

¶33

This appeal is as against the common Order and Award dated 06.01.2012 insofar as the claim petition in MVC No.939/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru [for short ' the Tribunal ']. The Tribunal, by this impugned Order has disposed of not only the appellant-claimant's petition but also the other two claim petition in MVC No.937 and 938 of 2011. The Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,08,000/- to the Claimant under the following

¶34

heads:

¶35

Sl.No.	Particulars	Amount (in Rs.)
1.	Towards pain and sufferings	20,000
2.	Towards Medical expenses	1,78,000
3.	Loss of amenities in future life	10,000
	Total	*2,08,000*

¶36

However, the Tribunal has directed the respondents to pay 50% of this amount along with interest at 6%

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:21971-DB MFA No. 9747 of 2012

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

because of its finding on the contributory negligence between the driver of the car in which the other - claimant [ referred to as ‘the claimant’ ] and the others were traveling and the driver of the other vehicle viz ., another car.

¶41

It is seen from the terms of the impugned Judgment that the claimant was traveling with his relatives in the car bearing No. KA 03 ME 6703 in Rajeevnagar, Mysuru when there was a collision between this car [ a Ford icon ] and the car bearing No. KA 09 MF 9090 insured with the third respondent. Two complaints are filed against the drivers of these two vehicles, and the jurisdictional Police, after investigation, have filed a 'B' report in the complaint against the driver of the Insured vehicle and filed charge sheet against the driver of the car in which the claimant was traveling. It is in these circumstances, and on perusal of the sketch, that the Tribunal has opined that both the drivers were

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:21971-DB MFA No. 9747 of 2012

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

negligent and therefore the liability of the Insurer will be limited to 50% of the compensation payable.

¶46

However, the Tribunal has not considered

¶47

the question of composite negligence, as that proposition would apply in the present case. The claimant cannot be denied compensation if the driver of the car he was traveling in was negligent, and when the principle of composite negligence applies, it would be open to the injured to make a claim against either of the Insurer. Therefore, this Court finds eminent reason for interference on this ground and to hold that the claimant would be entitled for entire compensation along with interest from the third respondent-insurer.

¶48

The appellant seeks enhancement in the compensation, essentially contending that he had suffered severe injuries and therefore there is inadequate compensation under the heads other than

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:21971-DB MFA No. 9747 of 2012

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

the head of medical expenses . Even according to the records produced, the appellant has suffered no permanent disability and given the appellant's age [ '63' as on the date of the accident ], this Court is not persuaded to opine that the Tribunal has erred in granting a sum of Rs.2,08,000/- as compensation with interest 6% per annum. At this stage, Sri L Sreekanta Rao, the learned counsel for the Insurer submits that this Court must, given the peculiarities of this case with the claimant not prosecuting the appeal diligently, may consider denying interest for a certain period lest the Insurer is compelled to pay interest for no fault.

¶53

The records are perused in the light of this submission, and this Court cannot opine that the delay in the disposal of the appeal on merits is only at the instance of the appellant. Indeed, there are multiple references to Lok Adalat at the request of the learned counsels for the parties. If such efforts have

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:21971-DB MFA No. 9747 of 2012

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

failed, the claimant cannot be made to suffer the loss

¶58

of interest. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

[a] The appeal is allowed in part modifying the Tribunal's finding that the respondents would be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of only 50% holding that they shall pay the entire compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition to the date of the deposit.

¶61

[b] As it is not in dispute that the third respondent [ the concerned insurer ] has paid 50% of the compensation in terms of the Tribunal's Award, the third respondent is called upon to pay the balance amount with interest within a period of eight [8] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

¶62