BY SRI v. MUNIRAJ
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8273 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN: THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, GANESH MAHAL, MUNICIPAL ROAD, KUNDAPURA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AT REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX, M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOVINDA Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE BACHCHAPPA, R/O MOODUGUDI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201. 2. MOHAMMED UGER, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O NIJAM SAHEB, R/O AISHA MANZIL, ALBADY, BELVE VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK - 576 201. (BY SRI. V. MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 20.01.2023, …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20.9.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.754/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEMBER, ADDITIONAL MACT, KUNDAPURA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,20,280/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT IN THE TRIBUNAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 20th September 2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl.MACT., Kundapura, (for short `Tribunal), in MVC.No.754/2007. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.
Legal Reasoning
3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 04.05.2007, at about 10.00 p.m., on National Highway-17, in front of Kota Primary Health Centre road, the claimant met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Omni car bearing registration No.KA-19-A-2404 by its - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR driver. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation. 4. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company denied the averments made in the claim petition. It denied its liability to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It also contended that accident occurred due to the negligence of the victim. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 6. To prove his case, claimant examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and marked 45 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-45. The respondents have examined two witnesses as RW-1 and RW-2 and marked 5 documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-5. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR 7. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and appreciating the materials available on record, awarded the following amount of compensation: Particulars Amount in Rs. Pain and suffering Loss of future income 20,000/- 43,680/- Loss of income during laid up period 20,000/- Loss of amenities Medical expenses 10,000/- 18,600/- Nourishment and attendant charges 8,000/- Total 1,20,280/- Tribunal absolved the liability of the Insurance Company from its payment of the compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred an appeal before this Court in MFA.No.1404/2012. This court heard the said appeal and allowed the appeal by judgment dated 16.06.2014 and matter was remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration of the case in accordance with law and to dispose of. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR 8. After remand, the Tribunal reheard the case and by the impugned judgment and award dated 20th September 2014, awarded the compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. The same is challenged by the insurer in this appeal. 9. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials placed before this court. 10. The fact of the accident is not in dispute. The
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the appellant during the course of the argument fairly submits that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Limited1, a person authorized to drive non-transport light motor vehicle can also drive light motor transport vehicle. On that basis, insurer cannot disown its liability to pay compensation. 1 (2017) 14 SCC 663 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR 11. The other ground which is seriously urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant. In his cross- examination, he admitted that "he suddenly tried to cross the road without looking at both sides of the road, and at the time of the accident, he was drunk. Had he not been drunk, he could have avoided the accident. Since he was intoxicated while crossing the road, he could not see the vehicles coming from the other side". The said admission shows that claimant himself was negligent and accident occurred due to his negligence. The negligence of driver of the car is very marginal. Therefore, learned counsel submits that contribution of claimant to cause accident in question is 90% and negligence of driver of the offending vehicle is to an extent of 10%. With these reasons, prayed to modify the award. 12. I have anxiously perused the records. The claimant was examined as PW-1. In his cross- examination, he admits his negligence as stated supra. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR 13. At the time of the accident, the claimant was intoxicated and he did not observe the movement of the vehicles while crossing the road. The accident occurred at around 10.00 p.m. in the night. These facts and circumstances indicate that he had contributed to the accident in question. 14. Fact of accident, place of accident and manner in which accident occurred are not in serious dispute. The highway was passing inside the city. Hence, people would cross the road to go from one side to another side of the road. Therefore, driver of the vehicle shall drive their vehicle slowly and with more carefully. Looking to the materials available, it appears the driver of offending car was not attentive. It is the duty of the driver of any vehicle to be more careful while driving on the road. Merely because the claimant was crossing the road inattentively does not mean that driver of the vehicle could hit him and cause the accident. Had the driver maintained proper control over the vehicle, he could have - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR avoided the accident. Therefore, the claimant's contribution to the accident is marginal, and the primary responsibility is with the driver of the offending vehicle. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the negligence of the driver of the car be taken as 90% and as such, the claimant is entitled for compensation of 90% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Therefore, prayed to reconsider the same. 16. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has awarded reasonable amount of compensation. The claimant has not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Considering these facts, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for reconsideration of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not tenable. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for 90% of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR amount awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,08,252/-. The claimant is entitled for interest on the said amount at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realization. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i) The Appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 20th September 2014, passed in MVC.No.754/2007, by the Senior Civil Judge and Member, Addl.MACT., Kundapura, stands modified. iii) The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,08,252/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. iv) The respondent/2-Appellant - Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of six weeks from the date of award. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:21039 MFA No. 8273 of 2014 HC-KAR v) The deposit and release of the amount is as ordered by the Tribunal. vi) Whatever amount deposited by the appellant-insurer before this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for disbursement. vii) Draw award accordingly. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37