Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1070
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B.V. Nagarathna, Ravi V. Hosmani, JJ.
Sudhakar Shetty - Appellant
Versus
G. Nithyananda Shenoy - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 2669 of 2015, 7304 of 2014
Decided On : 22-06-2020
Pratheep K C, Advocate, S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, Advocate, H. Jayakara Shetty, Advocate, K.S. Lakshmi Narasappa, Advocate, B.C. Sheetha Rama Rao, Advocate, Pratheep K C, Advocate
Headnote:
M.V. Act 1988 - Compensation - [DRIVING LICENCE, COMPENSATION, LIABILITY, INTEREST] - Section 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 was invoked in a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motorbike- autorikshaw accident. The court examined the issue of liability on the insurance company and held that the insurer was liable to satisfy the judgment and award. The court also addressed the claimant's entitlement to enhanced compensation, granting a total compensation of Rs. 33,35,930. The court reduced the rate of interest from 8% to 6% per annum and directed the insurer to deposit the balance compensation with up-to-date interest before the Claims Tribunal within six weeks. The court further directed the Claims Tribunal to deposit 75% of the enhanced compensation amount in a Post Office and Nationalised Bank for an initial period of ten years, with the balance compensation to be released to the claimant's wife. The judgment was allowed in part and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motorbike- autorikshaw accident. The Claims Tribunal framed issues related to the accident's cause, the claimant's entitlement to compensation, and the liability of the insurer. The claimant presented evidence of severe injuries and permanent disability, seeking enhancement of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the insurer liable to satisfy the judgment and award, and addressed the claimant's entitlement to enhanced compensation, granting a total compensation of Rs. 33,35,930. The court also reduced the rate of interest from 8% to 6% per annum and directed the insurer to deposit the balance compensation with up-to-date interest before the Claims Tribunal within six weeks. The court further directed the Claims Tribunal to deposit 75% of the enhanced compensation amount in a Post Office and Nationalised Bank for an initial period of ten years, with the balance compensation to be released to the claimant's wife.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court included the liability of the insurer, the claimant's entitlement to enhanced compensation, and the rate of interest on the compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurer was liable to satisfy the judgment and award, and addressed the claimant's entitlement to enhanced compensation, granting a total compensation of Rs. 33,35,930. The court also reduced the rate of interest from 8% to 6% per annum and directed the insurer to deposit the balance compensation with up-to-date interest before the Claims Tribunal within six weeks. The court further directed the Claims Tribunal to deposit 75% of the enhanced compensation amount in a Post Office and Nationalised Bank for an initial period of ten years, with the balance compensation to be released to the claimant's wife.
Final Decision: The judgment was allowed in part, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly. The insurer was directed to deposit the balance compensation with up-to-date interest before the Claims Tribunal within six weeks, and the Claims Tribunal was directed to deposit 75% of the enhanced compensation amount in a Post Office and Nationalised Bank for an initial period of ten years, with the balance compensation to be released to the claimant's wife.
JUDGMENT
Ravi V Hosmani, J. - Both these appeals are listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, they are heard finally and disposed of by this judgment.
2. M.F.A.No.2669/2015 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation; while M.F.A.No.7304/2014 has been filed by the United India Insurance Co., Ltd., questioning the liability to satisfy the judgment and award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal' for the sake of convenience), dated 11.09.2014 in MVC No.319/2012.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that, on 06-06-2011, the claimant- Sudhakar Shetty was riding his motor-bike bearing registration No.KA-20-J-9726 from Karkala to Hebri. At about 2.30 p.m. when he was in front of the shop premises of Harish at Hirgana, driver of an autorikshaw bearing registration No.KA-20-A/805 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor-bike. As a result, claimant sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to K.M.C. hospital. Despite, treatment he suffered permanent physical disability and consequent loss of earning capacity. Hence, he filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) claiming compensation of Rs.65,05,000/- from respondent No.1 owner and respondent No.2 - insurer of the offending autorikshaw.
5. In response to the notice issued by the Claims Tribunal, respondent No.1, entered appearance, but did not file any written statement. Respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed his written statement. Though, it admitted coverage under the policy, it was contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the goods autorikshaw at the time of the accident. It filed an application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act, which was allowed. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-20-A-805 by its driver ?
2. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the accident in question occurred due to the negligent riding by the vehicle bearing Reg.No. KA-20-J-9726 by the petitioner?
3. Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the rider of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-20-A- 805 had no valid and effective driving license on the date and time of the accident ?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
5. What award or order?
7. In support of his case, the claimant examined Dr. Arjun Chaco, who treated him, as P.W.1; Sunitha Shetty - wife of the claimant as P.W.2 and three other witnesses as P.W.3 to P.W.5. Documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.27 were marked. R.W1 and R.W.2 were examined on behalf of respondent No.2 and got marked five documents at Exs.P.1 to P.5.
8. Thereafter the Claims Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative; issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative; issue No.4 partly in the affirmative and issue No.5 as per final order awarding a total compensation of Rs.22,29,640/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of actual deposit and directed respondent No.2 - insurer to pay the compensation.
9. We have heard Sri. Prateep K.C. learned counsel for the claimant appellant who appeared in person and Sri. K.S. Lakshmi Narasappa, learned counsel for Sri. B.C. Seetharam Rao, learned counsel on behalf of the insurance company, through Video Conference and also learned counsel Sri. H Jayakara Shetty, who appeared for respondent No.2 - owner of the vehicle, who appeared in person.
