Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 23451
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J
BHAGYAMMA. B – Appellant
Versus
NARASARAJA – Respondent
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9021 OF 2018 (MV-I) | MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9022 OF 2018 (MV-I)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.K. BHAT, SHANTHARAJ K
For the Respondents: A N KRISHNA SWAMY
Important Points
Subject
Motor Vehicles - Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compensation - Assessment of injuries and future loss - The court re-evaluated compensation for pain, suffering, medical expenses, and future income based on disability - Legal principles regarding disability affecting future earning capacity were applied. (Paras 6, 13, 23)
Facts of the case:
Claimants sought enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving a Tata Ace vehicle. Tribunal initially awarded compensation but later appeals were filed for increased amounts based on the severity of injuries. The main issue involved determining the driver's license liability and the adequacy of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The claimants are entitled to enhanced total compensation of Rs.7,97,995/- with 6% interest, while the order regarding the driver’s license and insurance coverage was upheld.
Issues: The primary issues addressed by the court included liability for compensation in light of the driver’s lack of a driving license and appropriate assessment of the claimants' injuries and functional disabilities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that even if an insurance company's defense regarding driver licensing was established, it still had an obligation to pay compensation to third parties, following established legal precedents, while determining fair compensation for the claimants based on the injuries sustained.
Result: Appeals allowed-in-part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims for enhanced compensation due to injuries sustained in vehicle accidents. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. liability rests with vehicle owner in case of unlicensed driver. (Para 5 , 12 , 22) |
| 3. correct calculation of damages, factoring future income and disabilities. (Para 7 , 8 , 16 , 26) |
| 4. judgment outcome with detailed compensation amounts. (Para 27) |
JUDGMENT
Both these appeals are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT XIII, Madhugiri, vide judgment and award dated 30.08.2018 in MVC Nos.253/2017 & 254/2017 as well as questioning the liability fixed on the owner of the Tata Ace vehicle.
2. The factum of accident and injuries sustained by the claimants are not in dispute.
3. Rank of the parties are stated as before trial court for easy reference and convenience.
4. Heard the arguments of both parties and perused the materials on record.
5. In the present cases, the Tribunal while awarding compensation has fixed the liability on the owner of the Tata Ace vehicle on the reason that the owner cum driver of said vehicle was not holding driving licence to drive the Tata Ace vehicle.
6. When the insurance company has taken defence that the driver of Tata Ace Vehicle did not have driving licence, then the burden is on the owner/driver of the Tata Ace vehicle to prove the driving licence. The owner of vehicle has appeared before the Tribunal and contested the case but has not produced the driving licence, therefore Tribunal has rightly drawn inference on the driver/owner of the Tata Ace vehicle that the driver was not holding driving licence. Therefore, the insurance company is able to prove defence as per sub-section (2) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’), but as per sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the MV Act even though on the proved defence as per sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company as if the judgment debtor shall satisfy the claim in respect of third parties and then recover the same from the owner of the Tata Ace vehicle. As per the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases ofPAPPU AND OTHERS -Vs- VINOD KUMAR LAMBA AND ANOTHER ,
MFA 9021/2018 (MVC No.253/2017):
7. In the present case, the claimant has suffered following injuries:
(i) Subtronchitric fracture of left femur
(ii) Fracture of left hip
8. Considering the nature of injuries sustained, compensation of Rs.60,000/- is awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Based on the actual bills produced by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded maintenance of Rs.69,935/- towards medical expenses, which is just and proper. Hence, same is kept intact.
10. Further compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head ‘food, diet, nourishment and attendant charges, as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. Further compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the head ‘loss of amenities’ as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The doctor has stated that the claimant has suffered 39% disability to the left lower limb and 20% disability to the whole body, but the Tribunal has taken only
13% as functional disability. Considering the nature of injuries that is suffered by the claimant i.e., subtronchitric fracture of left femur and fracture of left hip and that the claimant is working in garments factory, certainly this f
