The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7248 OF 2014 (MV) …APPELLANT BETWEEN: SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O SRI. AMASI SHETTY, AGE: 45 YEARS, R/AT 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, MUDALAPALYA CIRCLE, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 072 (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.MOHAN KUMAR K.P. S/O SRI PUTTESWAMY, R/O NO.19/20, 11TH CROSS, GANAPATHINAGAR, RAJAGOPALANAGAR, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 058 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE -560 001 3. D.N. DEVARAJA S/O NANJEGOWDA, R/AT DODDENAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGANAHALLI HOBLI, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571 401 4. THE MANAGER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, NO.1576, VISHWESHWARAIAH ROAD, P.B. NO. 54, MANDYA, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 MANDYA DISTRICT -571 401
Legal Reasoning
there is no dispute on that. Coming to the income, according to the claimant, she is earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month, the Tribunal had taken the income at an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. The claimant had sustained disability to both the limbs and according to the doctor, the disability is at 30% and as she is working as a coolie, the Tribunal had taken the disability at 20% and this Court is inclined to take the disability at 30%. Considering her occupation in this case, she is entitled for future loss of income also i.e., Rs.4,000+25% of the future prospects will come to Rs.1,000/- that becomes Rs.5,000(5000×12×14×30/100) is Rs.2,52,000/-. Towards loss of income during laid up period, the Tribunal had rightly granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Hence, no interference is called for. As per Ex.P.6, the claimant was in hospital for 20 days, hence towards attendance and nourishment charges, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 this Court is granting an amount of Rs.20,000/-. As per Ex.P.15, there are two implants in both the legs, it has to be removed, hence towards future medical expenses this Court is granting an amount of Rs.60,000/-. Considering the disability, towards loss of amenities, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.40,000/-. 9. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M. MALATHI AND ANOTHER1, the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards Legal Expenses. 10. The claimant is therefore, entitled to the compensation under the following heads: Heads 1. Pain and Suffering 2. Re-imbursement medical bills Compensation Awarded by Tribunal : Rs. : Rs. of 30,000/- 10,000/- Compensation Awarded by this Court 1,00,000/- 10,000/- 3. For loss of future : Rs. 1,34,400/- 2,52,000/- income (5000X12X14X30/100) For loss of income during laid up period Food, nourishment and attendant charges : : 4. 5. 1 (2014) 11 SCC 178 Rs. 15,000/- 15,000/- Rs. - 20,000/- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 6. Future medical expenses 7. Loss of amenities 8. Legal expenses : Rs. : Rs. Rs. - - - 60,000/- 40,000/- 10,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 1,89,400/- 5,07,000/- Enhanced compensation : Rs. 3,17,600/- 11. Altogether, the claimant in MVC.No.1290/2011is entitled for compensation of an amount of Rs.5,07,000/-. This Court had perused the order of the Tribunal wherein at one stretch it is stated that the owner of the auto rickshaw is liable to pay the compensation. When it comes to the operative portion of the order, it is held that the insurer of the auto rickshaw is liable to pay the compensation. Even otherwise whatever is the violation that is stated still the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal had fixed the liability at 25% on the insurer of the auto rickshaw and 75% on the insurer of the motorcycle and the same is affirmed as both the insurance companies are one and the same. 12. With regard to the liability, the finding on record shows that the accident had taken place in a route where they were not having the permit to ply the vehicle. Learned counsel - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 for the insurance company had relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amrit Paul Singh and another Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. and others2 and also Rani and others Vs. National Insurance company Ltd. and others3, another judgment of the Delhi High Court in case of Gurmeet Singh Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others4where the learned Judge had referred to all the judgments and also the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gohar Mohammed Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others5and she also relied another judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Somanath @ SomappaVs. Sharanappaand others6. Relying on these judgments learned counsel submits that it is a fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and in all those judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that the insurance company is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In view of the same, as far as 25% of liability of the auto rickshaw is concerned, the insurance company shall pay the compensation and recover 2 (2018) 7 Supreme Court Cases 558 3AIR ONLINE 2018 SC 84 4 MAC.APP.NO.288/2021 & CM APPLS.39915/2021, 39917/2021 5 (2023) 4 SCC 381 6MFA.No.25416/2012, dated 06.03.2023 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is Allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.1,89,400/- to Rs.5,07,000/-. i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ii. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall pay 75% of the compensation amount and respondent No.4/Insurance Company shall pay 25% of the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicles. iii. Respondent Nos.2 and 4-insurance companies shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 v. No costs. vi. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN, KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
Arguments
(BY SMT.GEETHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R4- SERVED R1 & R3- SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O. DT: 11.03.2025) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.09.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.1290/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XXI ACMM, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed in MVC.No.1290/2011 dated 17.09.2014 by the XXI ACMM and XXIII ASCJ and Small Causes Judge, Member MACT, Bengaluru, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimant that on 09.06.2009, the claimant was going by an Auto Rickshaw with her relatives to go to KumbaraKoppalu on Arasikere-Channarayapatna road. When they reached nearby Muddenahali, the auto rickshaw was driving in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, when they reached near Baraguru Handpost at about 2.00 pm., the rider of the motor cycle came from opposite direction with a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Auto Rickshaw. Thereby she sustained injuries. As per the wound certificate, the claimant had sustained compound fracture left femoral, fracture tibia condoyle left, fracture patella left, Comminuted fracture (right) femoral condoyle, fracture (right) tibia condoyle, fracture (right) patella underwent or and IF with patelectomy. As per the evidence of the doctor, she had sustained 60% disability to both the limbs and 30% to the whole body. According to the claimant, she is working as a coolie and earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month. Towards loss of future income, the Tribunal had taken the disability at 20% and granted an amount of Rs.1,34,400/- and towards loss of income during the laid up period, the Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.15,000/-. Towards pain and sufferings an amount of Rs.30,000/- was granted. Towards reimbursement of medical bills an amount of Rs.10,000/- was granted by the Tribunal. 3. Basing on the evidence, the Tribunal had granted the compensation as per the table given below: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 Heads of 1. Pain and Sufferings 2. Reimbursement medical bills For income For during laid up period TOTAL loss of loss of 3. 4. income future Compensation Awarded : Rs. : Rs. 30,000/- 10,000/- : : Rs. 1,34,400/- Rs. 15,000/- : Rs. 1,89,400/- 4. Altogether the Tribunal had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.1,89,400/-. Aggrieved thereby the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 5. When it comes to the liability, the Tribunal has held that respondent No.1 is the RC holder of the motorcycle, respondent No.3 is the RC owner of the auto rickshaw. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 are the insurers of both the vehicles. Due to contributory negligence act of the rider of the motorcycle is 75% and the contributory negligence of the auto rickshaw is 25%. Accordingly, the policy is in existence therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the accident on 75%. Respondent No.3 violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay 25% of the compensation in support of the auto rickshaw. Hence, the Tribunal had held that the owner of the auto rickshaw is liable - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 to pay 25% of the compensation and the insurer of the motorcycle is liable to pay 75% of the compensation. Aggrieved thereby, claimant is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that on all the counts, the compensation that is granted by the Tribunal is not a reasonable one and the same needs to be enhanced. It is submitted that the insurer of the auto rickshaw is also liable to pay the compensation and not having the permit cannot be a ground to exonerate the insurance company. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and 4/Insurance Companies submits that the Tribunal had rightly held that the insurer of the auto rickshaw is not liable to pay the compensation and it is alone, who is liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the compensation that is awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and no interference is called for. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. This Court had perused the order and the material where from the claimant had sustained - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12873 MFA No. 7248 of 2014 compound fracture left femoral, fracture tibia condoyle left, fracture patella left, Comminuted fracture (right) femoral condoyle, fracture (right) tibia condoyle, fracture (right) patella underwent or and IF with patelectomy. Considering the same, towards pain and sufferings, this Court is granting an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. As far as the medical bills are concerned,