Insurers remain liable for compensation even in policy violation scenarios, and future prospects must be included in personal injury claims, ensuring awarded amounts reflect actual pain, suffering, and loss of amenities.

JUDGMENT :

(RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.)

Challenging judgment and award dated 03.03.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal no.XV, Vijayapura, (for short, 'Tribunal') in MVCs no.1304, 1305 and 1310 of 2019, these appeals are filed by insurer as well as claimants. While MFAs no.200033/2022, 200007/2022 and 200011/2022 are filed by insurer, MFAs no.201944/2022, 201776/2022 and 201717/2022 are filed by claimants.

2. Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel submitted, as per claimants, at 2:30 p.m., on 08.12.2018, all claimants were traveling in auto-rickshaw bearing registration no.KA-28/9238 on NH-50, when it was near Benal cross, its driver drove it in rash and negligent manner, lost control and vehicle turtled causing accident. In said accident, passengers sustained grievous injuries and lost earning capacity despite taking treatment. Therefore, they filed claim petitions in MVCs no.1304, 1305 and 1310 of 2019 respectively under Section 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT against owner and insurer of auto- rickshaw.

3. On contest, wherein, owner remained exparte and insurer denied claimants’ averments in toto and alleged violation of policy conditions and specifically, contended that vehicle was covered for geographical limits within Basavana Bagewadi town, but accident had occurred beyond said limit. Thereby, leading to violation of terms and conditions of policy. Under such circumstances, tribunal was not justified in holding insurer liable to pay compensation. Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimants examined themselves as PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked. Court Commissioner examined Dr.Ramanagouda Basanagouda Biradar as CW.1 and Exs.C1 to C6 were got marked. Respondent – insurer examined its official as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2.

4. On other hand, Sri Sanganagouda V.Biradar, learned counsel for claimants opposed insurer’s appeals and pressed claimants’ appeals for enhancement. It was submitted in view of decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Abdul Rouf v. Megharaj Mehdole and others in MFA no.201648/2015 and connected matters disposed of on 26.11.2020, holding insurer liable even if it established violation of permit conditions due to vehicle plying beyond geographical limits of coverage, as such violation would at best invite penalty, appeals were devoid of merit.

5. On quantum, it was submitted, in MVC no.1304/2019, claimant- Renuka who was 38 years old and working as coolie, sustained fracture of superior and inferior remiss of pelvis, assessed by CW.1-Dr.R.B.Biradar to have resulted in 12% permanent physical disability. But, tribunal considered functional disability at 4% which was on lower side. It was submitted, despite claimant sustaining major fracture, award of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering was inadequate. Tribunal also erred in awarding meager amount of compensation of Rs.6,500/- towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and other incidental expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during laid-up period and sought enhancement.

6. In MVC no.1305/2019, it was submitted, claimant was 45 years old, agricultural coolie, who sustained fracture of lower end of right radius. However, tribunal awarded only Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and same requires enhancement. It was submitted CW.1 had assessed limb disability at 20%, tribunal erred in taking functional disability at 7% and same requires enhancement. Tribunal also erred in awarding only Rs.6,000/- towards attendant charges, food, nourishment and other incidental expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income durin