The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5864 OF 2018 (MV-I) BETWEEN: 1. M RAVISHANKAR S/O LATE MUNINACHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O 3RD MAIN, MUNESHWARANAGARA, KOLAR (BY MISS. SWATHI N HEGDE, & MISS. PAYAL DECHAMMA D V, ADVOCATES A/W SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT AND: 1. SHARADA J Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka AGE MAJOR, R/O NO.82, 9TH CROSS, LAKSHMINARAYANAPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 021 2. THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45 & 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 14 (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.10.2017 PASSED IN MVC NO.287/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT AT KOLAR TO EXTENT OF DISALLOWED CLAIM AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant / claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 03.10.2017, passed by 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kolar in MVC No.287/2014, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. 2. The Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.22,35,451/- as against the claim of Rs.25,00,000/- by the claimant, however, restricting the interest only on Rs.3,34,299/- at 6% per annum, and declining to grant - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 any interest on the amount of Rs.19,01,222/- towards loss of future prospects due to disability. 3. The date of accident, involvement of the vehicle in this case is not disputed. The only dispute is in respect of liability to pay the compensation and also the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Heard Miss. Swathi N Hegde and Miss. Payal
Legal Reasoning
Dechamma D.V., on behalf of Sri. Pavana Chandra Shetty. H, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Ravi S. Samprathi, on behalf of Sri.P.B Raju, learned counsel appearing for respondent – insurance company. 5. Miss.Swathi vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error in exonerating the insurance company absolutely from paying compensation on the ground that the road permit to the vehicle expired as on the date of the accident as per Exhibits-R7 to R8. She further contended that the law is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of AMRIT PAUL SINGH - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 AND ANOTHER VS. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED1, and stressed on paragraph Nos.23 and 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment supra at paragraph Nos.23 and 24 has held as under: “23. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasize, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh (AIR 2004 SC 1531) (supra) and 1 AIR 2018 SCC 2662 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 Lakhmi Chand (AIR 2016 SC 315) (supra) in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the "Tripitaka", that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle. 24. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we do not perceive any merit in the appeal and, accordingly, the same stands dismissed without any order as to costs.” 6. In view of the settled position of Law the insurance company is primarily liable to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover from the owner of the vehicle. She also relies on the judgment of this Court dated 16.08.2022 wherein, in MFA No.633/2021 C/W. MFA - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 No.3627/2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.2 has held under: “2. The tribunal has exonerated the liability of the insurer on the ground that there was a violation of the permit conditions. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh and Ors. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors – AIR 2018 SC 2662, this ground would be unavailable to the insurer. The insurer would be liable to pay the compensation and thereafter, proceed to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.” 7. She further contended that the amounts of compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are also on lower side. She has stated that the Tribunal has committed serious error in declining the interest on Rs.19,01,222/- awarded towards loss of future income due to disability without there being any valid reason. The Tribunal has not given reason for declining to grant interest on Rs.19,01,222/- awarded towards loss of future income due to disability. With this, Miss. Swathi submitted that the appeal be allowed, the insurance - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 company primarily be made liable to pay the compensation, thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, enhance the compensation by redetermination of compensation and also award interest on Rs.19,01,222/-, which has been declined by the Tribunal. 8. Refuting the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Sri.Ravi S Samprathi, submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered the case of the injured and while discussing at para No.16 has given cogent reasons for holding respondent No.1 – owner of the vehicle liable to pay the compensation and also granted proper compensation under all heads properly, warrants any interference. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the impugned order and the materials placed on record. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 10. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, regarding the entire liability fixed on the owner of the vehicle on the ground of lack of permit to ply the vehicle on the road in terms of Section – 66 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988, the law has been settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court as such is no more res-integra. Any violation of the terms of conditions of the policy, in the event the policy is a package policy, the owner is primarily liable to pay the compensation and subsequently recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is followed in the judgment, by the Coordinate Bench of this Court supra, this Court feels appropriate to modify the liability so far as making the insurance company primarily liable to pay the compensation to the claimant with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 11. So far as the second contention is concerned, regarding declining of interest on Rs.19,01,222/- awarded towards loss of future income, absolutely, there is no reason forthcoming by the Tribunal. Though Sri.Ravi S Samprathi, on behalf of Sri.P.B Raju, learned counsel appearing for respondent – insurance company supported the judgment, but he is not in a position to place anything to sustain for the reason Tribunal to decline the interest. 12. In view of the same, the order of the Tribunal so far as the declining of the interest on Rs.19,01,222/- towards loss of future income requires to be modified and insurance company is held liable to pay the interest on amount awarded towards loss of future income due to disability at the rate of 6% per annum. REGARDING QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION : 13. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant taking this Court to paragraph No.13 of the judgment wherein the Tribunal has stated regarding the evidence of PW-2 who has deposed so far as the injuries sustained by - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 the claimant is concerned so also the disability suffered. Taking into consideration the injuries which are grievous in nature so also the disability suffered, Rs.50,000/- awarded under the head ‘pain and sufferings’, is just and proper. 14. Towards ‘Medical Expenses’, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.95,371/- which is as per the bills and the same is retained. 15. Towards ‘Incidental Charges’, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-, which is just and proper. 16. Towards ‘Loss of Amenities’, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, which is on lower side and hence a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the said head. 17. Towards ‘Conveyance Charges’, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-, which is on lower side - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 and hence a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the said head. 18. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards Future Medical Expenses. Though the Doctor - PW-2 has clearly stated that the appellant requires a total hip replacement, the accident is of the year 2012, now we are in 2025 i.e., almost 13 years is over. Considering the case that though PW-2 was cross- examined by the respondent-insurance company nothing is elicited against the say of PW-2, in view of the date of the accident and the time lapsed till date, this Court feels appropriate to grant an another sum of Rs.50,000/- towards Future Medical Expenses. 19. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,01,222/- towards ‘loss of income due to disability’ and a sum of Rs.1,94,258/- towards ‘loss of income during hospitalisation’, which is just and proper and does not call for interference. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 20. In summary, the total compensation re- determined by this Court under various heads is as follows: 1. Loss of future income : Rs. 19,01,222/- 2. Pain and Sufferings : Rs. 50,000/- 3. Medical Expenses : Rs. 95,371/- 4. Incidental Charges : Rs. 7,500/- 5. Loss of income during : Rs. 1,94,258/- hospitalization 6. Loss of amenities and : Rs. 25,000/- expectations 7. Conveyance : Rs. 10,000/- 8. Future Medical Expenses : Rs. 50,000/- TOTAL : Rs. 23,33,351/- 21. The total compensation re-determined by this Court works out to Rs.23,33,351/- as against Rs.22,35,451/- awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.97,900/- (Rs.23,33,351 - Rs.22,35,451) along with interest at 6% per annum - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16102 MFA No. 5864 of 2018 from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: i)
Decision
The appeal is Allowed-In-Part; ii) The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 03.10.2017, in MVC.No.287/2014, on the file of 1ST Additional Senior Civil Judge & MACT At Kolar, is modified. iii) The appellant – claimant is entitled for an additional compensation of Rs.97,900/- (Rs.23,33,351 - Rs.22,35,451) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal. iv) No order as to costs. Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28