Back
2005 Supreme(Kar) 600
In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
Suresh
V
Prithviraj Dhanraj Jain And Others
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. 7218 and 7219 of 2003.
27th September, 2005
Sri RK Hatti, Advocate for Appellant in both M.F.As;
Sri M. Arun Ponnappa, Advocate for Respondent-2 in both M.F.As.
Headnote:Motor Accident Claims - Principles - Liability of insurer - Private car - Inmates not covered by policy as special premium was not paid for the purpose - Injury to inmates - Insurer cannot be held liable.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 -Liability of insurer - Private car - Inmates not covered by policy as special premium was not paid for the purpose - Injury to inmates - Insurer cannot be held liable. [K. Sreedhar Rao, J.] - The injured petitioner are the inmates of the car insured with the second respondent. The policy issued by respondent No. 2 is marked at Ex. R. 1 is also a Act policy. The counsel for the insurer contends that by mistake the insurer has satisfied the award in MVC No. 65/2003 and 67/2003. The car is a private vehicle. Unless the risk of the inmates is covered by payment of special premium, the insured is not liable to pay compensation. The fact that the insurer has paid the compensation awarded may not be a ground to fasten the additional liability to pay the enhanced compensation. Thus argued for exoneration of any further liability on the insurer.
Motor Accident Claims - Quantum of compensation - Personal injuries - Businessman - Income tax assessee - Lacerated wounds over right parietal and occipital area of scalp, upper lip, right thigh, swelling of left part of chin, fracture of mandible, dislocation of hip joint and injuries to head - Disability assessed at 40%- Income assessed at Rs. 3,000/- per month - Rs 40,000/- towards pain and agony, Rs 91,452/- towards medical bills, produced (in all Rs. 1,10, 000/- towards medical expenses), Rs 40,000/- towards loss of amenities and discomfort, Rs 2,30,400 (1200 X 12 X 16) towards loss of future income, Rs 15,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period, awarded amounting to a total of Rs 4,35,000/- instead of Rs 1,90,000/- awarded by tribunal.
The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 65 of 2003 sustained lacerated wound over the right parietal and occipital area of scalp, lacerated wound over the upper lip, lacerated wound over the right thigh and swelling over the left part of the chin and suffered fracture of mandible and dislocation of hit joint with head injuries. The petitioner took treatment at Kolhapur Hospital and also at Ghataprabha Hospital. The petitioner is operated and open reduction is done. The doctor has assessed the total body disability at 40% as per Ex. P. 82. Petitioner is a business man. The petitioner is a income-tax assessee. The income of the petitioner to be assessed at Rs. 3,000/- p.m.
2. On re-examination of the facts and evidence, Rs. 40,000/- to be awarded towards pain and agony. Medical bills are produced for Rs. 91,452/-. In all the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1,10,000/- for medical expenses and incidental expenses relating to treatment. Rs. 40,000/- to be awarded towards loss of amenities and discomfort on account of the disability. Rs. 2,30,400/- (Rs. 1200 x 12 x 16) is to be awarded towards loss of future income on account of disability, Rs. 15,000/- to be awarded for loss of income during laid up period. In all the petitioner to be entitled to Rs. 4,35,000/- as against Rs. 1,90,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. On the enhanced compensation, the interest payable shall be at 6% from the date of the petition till payment.
3. The petitioner in M.V.C. No. 67 of 2003 awarded compensation of Rs. 65,000/- with interest at 8% from the date of the petition till payment. The compensation awarded is just and proper.
4. The injured petitioners are the inmates of the car insured with the second respondent. The policy issued by respondent 2 is marked at Ex. R. 1 is also a Act policy. The Counsel for the insurer contends that by mistake the insurer has satisfied the awards in MV.C. Nos. 65 of 2003 and 67 of 2003. The car is a private vehicle. Unless the risk of the inmates is covered by payment of special premium, the insured is not liable to pay compensation. The fact that the insurer has paid the compensation awarded may not be a ground to fasten the additional liability to pay the enhanced compensation. Thus argued for exoneration of any further liability on the insurer.
5. The contention of the insurer/second respondent is sound and proper. There is no legal liability to pay compensation to the petitioner under the policy Ex. R. 1. In that view, the appeal against the insurer is dismissed. The appeals are allowed partly. The compensation granted in the appeals shall be payable by the owner.
