IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
M.G. Uma, J.
Divisional Manager, Oicl Belgaum, Now - Appellant
Versus
Vithal Yamanappa Sattigeri @ Banavi - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 24728 of 2010, 22709 of 2010
Decided On : 26-06-2020
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - 147(1)(b) - 149 - 11-1(i)
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded compensation. The insurer appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant was entitled to compensation as he was traveling as an employee of the owner of the tractor-trailer, and the insurer was liable to pay the compensation.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the insurer, assessment of disability, and determination of compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision in National Insurance Company Vs. Maruthi and Others, which held that coolies traveling in a goods vehicle are compulsorily covered under Section 147(1)(b) of the Act. The court also considered the nature of the vehicle and the coverage under the fully worded policy and Section 147 to establish the insurer's liability.
Final Decision: The appeal by the insurer was dismissed, and the claimant was awarded additional compensation of Rs.3,41,000 with interest. The amount deposited by the insurer was ordered to be released in favor of the claimant.
JUDGMENT
M.G.Uma, J. - The appellant-Insurance Company preferred MFA No.24728/2010 aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 4/6/2010 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and MACT, Gogak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') partly allowing MVC No.578/2009 in favour of the claimant and awarding compensation of Rs.4,29,000/- with interest on Rs.4,19,000/- @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization from the owner and the insurer jointly and severally and also directing the insurer, i.e. the present appellant to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of order.
2. Mfa No.22709/2010 is preferred by the claimant before the Tribunal, claiming enhancement of the compensation upto Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant/Insurer Sri. S. S.Beturmath and Sri. Bahubali N.Kanabargi, learned Advocate for respondent No.1/Claimant.
4. Parties are referred to as per their rank assigned to them before the trial Court.
5. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
Appellant-Claimant in MFA No.22709/2010 has filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that had occurred on 21/2/2009 at about 11.00 hours while he was working as a coolie in the tractor bearing registration No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to the trailer bearing registration No.KA-49/T-2552 and proceeding in the trailer for the purpose of loading and unloading the Maize. It is stated that when the claimant was proceeding in the tractor-trailer towards the land belonging to Beerappa Hatti's to one Kotur's land in Chikkanadni village, the tractor was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed and as a result, the claimant who was sitting in the trailer jumped out and fell on the road. In the meantime, the wheel of the trailer ran over the claimant, as a result of which he sustained fractures and other injuries. Immediately after the incident, he was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Patagundi and thereafter, to Dr.M.G. Umarani's hospital at Gokak, where he was admitted as inpatient and took treatment till the date of filing of the petition i.e. 30/3/2009. The doctor had advised him to take bed rest for two months and also suggested that he may requires Rs.1,50,000/- as future medical expenses.
6. It was stated that prior to the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy and he was doing agricultural coolie work and earning more than Rs.5,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent physical disability and he is not in a position to earn his livelihood. He being the only earning member in his family, the claimant is suffering untold hardship.
7. It is contended by the claimant that the accident in question was only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to trailer bearing No.KA-49/T-2552 which was owned by respondent No.1-owner and insured with respondent No.2-Insurer and therefore, both the respondents have jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant with interest at 18% p.a.
8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court were notified. The respondent No.1-owner has filed his objection by engaging a counsel, admitting that there was a road traffic accident as stated by the claimant while he was working as a coolie in the tractor bearing No.KA-49/T-2251 attached to the trailer bearing No.KA- 49/T-2552, but denied that the said road traffic accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver and also denied that the claimant had sustained any fracture and other grievous injuries. The contention of the claimant regarding taking the treatment at various hospitals and the allegation regarding the amount required towards medical expenses are also
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.