Legal Manager Vs Master Ranjeeth Kumar

SINCE MINOR REP BY HIS MOTHER AND NATRUAL GUARDIAN SMT. ANITHA W/O LATE KODANDARAMU NOW AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT POOLAVARAPALLI PARAGODU POST BAGEPALLI TQ CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST.

¶26

LAKSHMINARASIMHAPPA MAJOR S/O CHINNAYAPPA R/AT POOLAVARAPALLI PARAGODU POST BAGEPALLI TQ CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. SURESH LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ANANDA V, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE

¶30

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.11.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO.1953/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU CITY, (SCCH-6) AND ETC.,

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

IN MFA NO. 858/2022

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

MASTER RANJEETH KUMAR S/O.LATE KODANDARAMU AGED 12 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPTD. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶36

SMT. ANITHA W/O. LATE KONDANDARAMU AGED 29 YEARS OCC: COOLIE(AGRICULTURE) POOLAVARAPALLI PARGODU POST BAGEPALLI TQ CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 207.

¶37

...APPELLANT

¶38

(BY SRI. SURESH LATUR, ADVOCATE)

¶39

AND:

¶40

SRI. LAKSHMINARASIMHAPPA S/O. CHINAYAPPA POOL AVARPALLI VILALGE PARAGODU POST BAGEPALLI TQ CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 561 207.

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURNCE COMPANY LIMITED 28/5 CENTENARY BUIDLING EAST WING M G ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H C SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE OF R1 IS D/W, V/O DATED 8/2/22)

¶46

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.11.2021 PASSED IN MVC NO. 1953/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURLU CITY (SCCH-6) AND ETC.,

¶47

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION, THIS

¶48

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶54

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶55

Heard Mr. Pradeep B., learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and Mr. Latur Suresh Mahalingappa, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.953/2022. The second respondent – owner of the offending vehicle though has been served, but he has chosen not to contest the appeal.

¶56

Miscellaneous First Appeal No.858/2022 has been filed by the claimant, represented by his natural guardian. The first respondent - owner of the offending vehicle though was served, but he has chosen not to appear and contest the appeal. Mr. Pradeep B., learned counsel appears for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

¶57

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

¶58

The claimant had suffered injury in the accident which took place on 07.01.2018 at 08.20 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding in a tractor bearing registration No.KA-40-TA-7491 at Sanjeevrayanahalli village, Gudibande

¶59

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Taluk. The claimant was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and he fell down from the tractor and suffered serious injuries.

¶62

His right leg was amputated in the course of his medical treatment. The injuries suffered by him, as per the medical records (Ex.P9) are:-

¶63

i) Traumatic amputation right leg middle 1/3

¶64

ii) Lacerated wound right thigh measuring 10 x 3 x 1 centimeter, middle 1/3^rd

¶65

The Doctor who issued the disability certificate was examined before the Tribunal as PW2. He produced the medical certificate and said that the claimant had suffered permanent disability of 75% in respect of right lower limb and 37.5% in respect of whole body. The Tribunal, therefore, took the disability at the rate of 37.5% to calculate loss of future earnings while granting the compensation.

¶66

Mr. Pradeep B., learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance Company could not have been held liable for payment of compensation as the claimant was an unauthorized occupant on the tractor and the

¶67

7 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

claimant was not covered under the insurance policy. However, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company incorrectly without considering the terms of the insurance policy, and also the fact that the claimant was unauthorisedly travelling in the tractor, sitting on the mudguard, against the terms of the insurance policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the Rules made therein.

¶71

6(i) In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in

¶72

Gadhilingappa @ Gadhilinga v. K. Guleppa K. Lingappa¹ . He has relied upon paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of the said judgment in support of his contention that, in such cases, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of the compensation, as a claimant in such a position is not covered under the contract of insurance.

¶73

On the other hand, Mr. Latur Suresh Mahalingappa,

¶74

learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Hon’ble

¶75

1 (2023) ACJ 623 (MFA CROB No.100001/2016 in MFA No.102649/2015 dt.20.04.2021)

¶76

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Supreme Court in similar facts and circumstances of the case, though has held that the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the compensation, but has ordered the Insurance Company to make payment of the awarded sum and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mamta

¶79

& Others v. Bhav Singh & Another² .

¶80

7(i) He has also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The Tribunal has considered only disability at the rate of 37.5% while calculating future loss of income of the claimant, whereas it should be 100% looking at the injuries suffered by the claimant. In support of the said submission, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Others v. Gainda Lal & Others³ .

¶81

We have considered the submissions. So far as the Full Bench judgment of this Court is concerned, it is on the same facts and circumstances as involved in the present case

¶82

2 2023 ACJ 624

¶83

3 2023 ACJ 588

¶84

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

and we respectfully agree with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation in case of injury or death suffered by the victim / person sitting on tractor other than the driver in as much as the contract of insurance does not cover such a person. Therefore, we hold that the appellant - Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶87

However, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mamta s upra , V. Renganathan and another v. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & another⁴ , we are of the view that the Insurance Company should make the payment and recover it from the owner of the vehicle.

¶88

So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, if we consider the schedule of the Employee's Compensation Act, 2023, the amputation is below the knee of the right leg, disability has to be taken at the rate of 50%. Therefore, we recalculate the compensation considering the disability at the rate of 50%, and calculate the

¶89

4 2023 ACJ 623

¶90

10 -

¶91

NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

loss of future income as Rs.10,000/- minus 50% = Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs.9,00,000/-. The compensation awarded in respect

¶94

of other heads need no modification.

¶95

Therefore, we modify the award as under:-

¶96

HEADS	Rs.
Loss of Future Earnings	9,00,000=00
Pain and suffering	1,00,000=00
Loss of amenities	1,00,000=00
Loss of income of mother	10,000=00
Medical expenses	2,31,747=17
Diet and transportation expenditure	15,000=00
TOTAL	13,56,747=00
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	9,96,747=00
ENHANCED COMPENSATION	3,60,000=00

¶97

In the result, we pass the following:

¶98

ORDER

¶99

i. The appeals are allowed-in-part.

¶100

ii. The judgment and award passed by the IV Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, M.A.C.T. (SCH-6) at Bengaluru, in MVC

¶101

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:6123-DB MFA No. 953 of 2022 C/W MFA No. 858 of 2022

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

No.1953/2018 is modified to the extent stated hereinabove. We modify the interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum.

¶104

iii. The claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.13,56,747/- as against Rs.9,96,747.17 ps., awarded by the Tribunal, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of its realization.

¶105

iv. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount together with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶106