\\
IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARNATAKA AT ,_
DATED THIS THE 10TH my OF NOVEMBER;--- 2(4):';ii:¥%j"' '-
:PRESENT_:; V' V'
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsT'tCE;'iV;~K.15A:rE?;'
. ._ .
THE HODPBLE n{;R.JUsf_1_ffc:$ I1,s.KEr.m§N1§,A
M.F.A."NVb.3633%.'bOhF"2i}Q4~ (MW
Am)" _ *
.wM.F.A.A'Ne..¢:1:'3,62 'Q3 2f)10f1E'{.§'\/'I\/'1
M.F.A. "
Between: 1 " ' 2 'I ' V
New India AAs"s1: ;:a:;Véé co;£::;§;gLny Ltd.,
Represented by tfm" £)iv:i_si@.x_1a] Manager
No.40, II F_10o_r, Lakshmi Cpinplex,
K. R. Road. Opp: Vanivilas. hospital,
Bangalolfe -- 56.0002'.
~ A' A' ...APDe11ant
__Sr,iV.:_ R,Je%i;;*.rakash, Advocate)
1.
uR.M;”$e.:1i;éai;raj, Major,
W.N0.36;’ Jdlly Masjid Road,
A “Jolly Mdhalla,
Bangalore — 560053.
2}. Annamalai,
” “S/0 Ramachanciran,
Aged about 29 years,
No.8, Icross, Bornm ahalli,
Hosur Road, Ban .
WWW”
That on 2.5.1999 at about 5.00 p.m., c1ain1ant”«9v’aVs
traveiiing in a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KAg–O ~
on Mathur Uttanagiri road alongwith ‘Au
they came near Jogipatty, Tarnilnadtt
time, the driver of the said *Jehic1e drovethe “in a ”
rash and negligent manner,lostcoritrol oaverthe Vehicle
and caused the accident;’ the claimant
sustained been taken to
to St. Johns Hospital,
Bangalore’; whcreidiifhe “has. taken-treatment as inpatient for
four days oi1.:’vacbcoti’n__f”‘Qf’ the injuries sustained, he
has suffered – disability and Doctor has
‘~ the di’s’ab–i1.ity at 40% to the face and at 20% to
_’the body which is permanent in nature.
‘i’tierefore;V’Vc}aimant has filed a claim petition before the
‘*._Tribun_at1’:. under section 166 of M.V. Act, claiming
“‘-V’_com4’f;rensation against the driver, owner and Insurer of
offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come
up for consideratio ore the Tribunal. The Tribunal
I _____mM____W___”,i.,_…«
Ii
Insurer. Further, he submitted that the case
claimant as per the claim petition is that;’ V’
Working as ooolie under the of
vehicle and was one of the inniates of the ear.
was going from Bangalore yvith it
other coolies and the anlaccident and
he sustained injurie§¢l,\\§ gagjeglgfore{ijinsurance is not
covered for -:iindAer’-i_’the_:f{nSurance Policy-
Ex.R2. Vlsinbniission, he placed
relian::;:Ve”or’:1e Larger Bench of this
Court 2003 Karnataka 3538
. . 9
(Bhigmayvau ‘others Vs. Shankar @ Adya and
arid subniitted that an employee who is being
1 the,’-ivehicle is covered by the policy if such
vehicle__”is-a’ goods carriage and in the instant case, the
V vehicleii’ is a Tata Sumo, a private car and not a goods
l”‘earriAage and therefore, the liability fastened on the
l ‘Insurer is liable to be set aside.
9%
J Mw
‘7. As against this, learned counsel
claimant and the learned counsel appeaifnig V’
owner of the offending vehicle”‘subm«ittedVl.l’ -lftheg
liability fastened on the lnsurerl’:’byf”the ”
accordance with the relevarit.tarovislonsV of Act
and therefore, interfe’re_nce.itb’y”thisllcourtf is not called
for.
8. Furtl1erl,Vg:sI’iearned the claimant Sri.
T.C. the Tribunal has
‘ awarding reasonable
compensation’ heads on account of the
injuriesg sulstained ‘by the claimant. Therefore, he
that impugned judgment and award
giasseaitfjiby the Tribunal is liable to be modified by
enhancirig §’cornpensation reasonably.
After hearing the learned counsel for the
lllnsurer, the claimant and the owner of the vehicle at
ll ‘ “considerable length of time and after careful perusal of
new
is clearmlfrom reading of section 147 of the
of insurance required to be taken in
respect’ of the death or bodily injuries arising out of and
in the course of employment of every employee of
l V’ the person insured under the policy. Such liability must
the materials available on file. the points that
our consideration are as under: it it i V’ V
(1) Whether the liabilityifastenedly ‘
by the Tribunal
(ii) Whether the con1}o:er1,satio11 the it
Tribunal .i$%;i.’l_’St §’01.1able?’ V3
Regarding Point V’ by b
10. AS. ‘by’ _._t__]Vr:1feV’V1earr1ecl counsel
for the from the terms and
condit._YiVons’_’l’ Policy that.
insuravncerisk in respect of coolies, if
theyjtravel.’ ‘the llpriylate car owned by the owner.
terms ..__of Section 146 need not cover the liability in
Z
E0
however be covered in respect of three cla-e.s:e«sl’~w.of
employees of the insured. namely:
(a) an employee engaged,in.__drivingV’4″t:h;Ve nu
covered by the policy. ‘
{b} an employee ast.”a.__cond~i:1ctoi*’of the”.
vehicle or kielietgf on the
Vehicle. If under the policy
is it
[c] being carried in the
llll {hepolicy if such vehicle is
i a i
VV’t°Fu’rther manifest from the terms and
” V’ ~._conditions=»of thehisurance Policy that coolies are not
u._.c”o_v_ei’e:c::l’«..iii<:der"_:the insurance. The Vehicle belonging to
iyas being used for personal purposes.
V"'»'l'here'foV1_}e, in the light of the relevant provisions of the
ulsection-147 read with section 146 and Chapter 11 of
…_tl1e Act and the law laid down by the Larger Bench of
this Court in Bhimavva's case (supra), we are of the
aw
/
considered view; that, the liability fastened
Insurance Company is liable to be
Accordingly, it is set aside ho1dingA'that¢_t}.1e .ouv§:u1erV:o;'£:the*~é
offending vehicle is liable ta satis__f3?*_the
case. x
gggardingpoint Q " it
12. It is the caseof he was aged
about 42 Tribunal has
assessed per month and the
same flivttittneeds to be enhanced.
Takingxinto the age, occupation and the
yeargo{_ accident} We “reassess the income of the
per month. Further it emerges
‘from that, claimant has taken treatment as
inpa.tie1fit’ foi’ four days in the hospital and on account of
VVLV.”th:z_.in_§i3;r:ies he has sustained permanent disability, the
assessed the disability of the face” at 40%
at 20% to the whalebody. The same is an
exaggeration and 1/3″! of 40% would be the wholebody
%:./»
disability and it comes to 13.3% and it is rounded”
14%. Accordingly, we take the disability ‘
wholebody instead of 7% as assessed Ru
This disability is permanent in nature and’clairr1an’t_l:”ha”s».
to suffer the same through-.,:Vou_t .lile.V_ar:1d”~–;it”’would ”
affect his earning C3P§EitYr=”” it’iS’~the’§ ease of
the claimant that he amount
towards medical’:-_ and other
incidental that, on account of
the inji1riesi,ll.l.}§ve§v tahkenlfbed rest and follow up
treatmentlforl during the said period he
might _vhave”~stistained loss of income as he could not
attended lflhislvwork. The appropriate multiplier
as he was aged about 42 years. But all
thlese aspectsjof the matter have not been considered or
“.,appreciated by the Tribunal while awarding compensation.
Taking all these factors into consideration, we award a sum
oi”; €10,000/– towards medical expenses, conveyance,
nourishing food and a ant charges, ?14,400/w towards
J
if if /-“~ and fhe’Eireak~ up is as follows:
2 Towards loss of amenities of fife
.’ Total
loss of income during the period of treatmentj’:fof:«_Vs*i2§.
months, ?56,448/– (2,400/– x 12 x 14 X 14/ ‘
loss of future income and a sumwof if
future medicai e2<§enses. V " V f f f if ' V
13. The Tribunal /– ” if
towards injury, pain’ hfafid-..a-fisum of
€20,000/– towards loss life, cliscomforts
and unhappirieggcféfitsonable and does
not call fol? if V
the impugned
judgmei:tia.irid the Tribunai is Eiable to be
modified. The’ .tota1’=_ compensation payable comes to
.f_–Tr.;wardVs».paif1aai1z:1 sufferings ? 45,000/-
ToWards’i:1v1–edi_cé.1 expenses, conveyance, ?’ 10,000/–
nourishi.ng§ood and attendant charges
Tow”arci’s loss of income during the ? 14,4-V00/–
V period ofl treatment
20,000/–
56,448/–
1.45.848]-
Towérds loss of future income
/”(*3/’J4
%W
L
15. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the_.viIns_:n’rer
and the appeal filed by the claimant are .
and the impugned judgment and….av_vard ll”
Tribunal in MVC No.754/2oo’::1 is’=~aer’e.by::”i;a§éiirjéa..f.
setting aside the liability fai_stenedA’on_
fastening liability on ..the thlewxiehicle and
awarding cornpensation v,té.48/- instead of
e1,03,5oo/– yawgardedgllbyl 1′ ‘The enhanced
compensation»_~..corries: vi. interest at 6%
pa, from of realisation.
‘l’he” is directed to deposit the
entire’ coIn;3enSation._iWith interest at 7% pa. on the
awardeld”b3/”the Tribunal and with interest at
” enhanced compensation, Within three
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment
and a”Wa.i’d.
it The enhanced compensation shall be released in
__faVour of the claimant immediately, on deposit by the
owner of the offending V€EiCl€.
T he apportionment ordered by the Trjxbunal
remains undisturbed.
The statutory deposit made’ bythe be 2
refunded to the Insurer.
Office is directed to the dwardg.
_d]; ex ?ffi3udge
Sd/-4r
Fudge
tsn*