Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1060
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Khader - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7129, 5867 of 2013
Decided On : 17-06-2019
Advocate Appeared:
A.N. Krishnaswamy, Adv., B. Pramod, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to modify the compensation awarded by the Tribunal based on a comprehensive assessment of the claimant's injuries, treatment, and disability, as well as the calculation of compensation for various factors.
Headnote:
Tribunal Judgment - MVC No.199/2011 - [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166] - The court discussed the evidence presented, including the claimant's injuries, treatment, and disability assessment. It modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering factors such as loss of future income, loss of amenities, and medical expenses. The court dismissed one appeal and allowed the other in part, granting enhanced compensation of Rs.75,000 with interest at 6% p.a.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals involved a claim petition related to a car-lorry accident resulting in severe injuries to the claimants. The insurance company challenged the compensation awarded, while the claimant sought enhancement of the compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence of the injuries, treatment, and disability assessment. It modified the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, considering factors such as loss of future income, loss of amenities, and medical expenses.
Issues: The issues included the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the assessment of the claimant's income, and the liability of the insurance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the assessment of the claimant's injuries, treatment, and disability, as well as the calculation of compensation for loss of future income, loss of amenities, and medical expenses.
Final Decision: One appeal was dismissed, and the other was allowed in part, granting enhanced compensation of Rs.75,000 with interest at 6% p.a.
JUDGMENT :
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
1. Though these appeals are listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsels on both sides, the same are taken up for final disposal.
2. In MFA No.7129/2013, the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.199/2011 dated 11.06.2013 has been challenged by the Insurance company by urging various grounds, where the Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.2,01,500/- with interest at 6% p.a.
3. Mfa No. 5867/2013, the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal in MVC No.199/2011 dated 11.06.2013 has been challenged by the appellant/ claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation.
4. The factual matrix of the appeals is as under: It is stated in the claim petition that claimants in M.V.C.No.199/2013 were proceeding to Sanduru from Chitradurga by hiring a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-14/A-2575, when the car came near Kalledevarapura at around 7.45 a.m., the offending lorry bearing Registration No.HR-56/C-5711 being driven by its driver in a greater speed came from opposite direction and hit the car. As a result of that, the claimants in claim petition made by them sustained severe injuries to their right shoulder, back, chest and other parts of the body. The claimant namely Khadar said to be the injured aged about 20 years at the relevant point of time and he incurred huge amount for his treatment and lorry which caused injuries was covered with insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 and the same was in force on the date of the accident. Therefore, the first respondent said to be the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being insurer are jointly and severally were liable to pay the compensation.
5. In pursuance of summons issued in the claim petition, the second respondent, being the insurer appeared through its counsel and filed statement of objections in detail to the respective claim petition denying the averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the issues and on evaluation of the evidence of P.W.1 Khadar in MVC No.199/2011 and evidence of P.W.3, being the doctor who provided treatment to him, document Ex.P.4-wound certificate said to be issued by the doctor and also other documents got marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.22 respectively, wherein the claim petitions were clubbed and rendered clubbing judgments to these appeals preferred by appellant/insurance company in MFA No.7129/2013 and in MFA No.5867/2013 preferred by the claimant/injured also been challenged by urging various grounds.
7. Sri A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant in MFA No.7129/2013 has taken me through the evidence of P.W.1- Khadar and so also the relevant documents produced by him which were got marked in order to establish his case as against the respondents. Despite service of notice, owner of the offending vehicle did not appear through out the proceedings. Even power of attorney holder has not produced the driving licence of the lorry driver before the appellant-insurance company or before the Tribunal and they were given legal notices to produce the same, but they did appear before the Tribunal. The power of attorney holder by virtue of the said power of attorney had procured release of the vehicle from the Police Station. The Tribunal has erroneously came to a conclusion that the appellant-insurance company has not produced any relevant documents to substantiate their case that the driver did not possess the driving licence and fastened liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company. He also relies upon the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Yashodhara B. Shetty vs. United India Insurance Co Ltd., and Others, (2007) ILR(Kar) 4567, wherein it is held that the appellant/insurance company has done everything at their part, though there was no con
