BETVVEEN 1N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT C'xULB.ARGA DATED: THIS THE 24:11 DAY OF FEBRUARY42Vd.1:'O._V_ BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE HULUVADI AL M.F.A. NO. 30108 OFQOOS i V A/W. Misc. cv1.No.»..1_5o0V62"2o09. «. " L The National Insurance, . Company Limited', Divisional Office.,--.P ' ., Bilgundi Com1fa1eX;,?S_tation1Road; Gu1b3rga_ 1 _ V (By Sri. M. Stidhaijshan;--. AdvoC'ate}. AND: 1. Sri. Devappa, A .-- V S/0.. Timm.ayya.. Yaragt3Ie. Agfijdv about v'19_iyears, Goo: '::";oo1i.ge 81 Agriculture, 'R/_o. .Waddanaha11i, =._v'R/O. Kollur, Dist. Gulbarga. ».Yadgi.§;_. Dist. Gulbarga. S / o,' K-seranaya Shau Motagi. AA Age:-: Major, Owner of Tempo Goods Bearing No.K.A~32 /6072, 2 Respondents
ii Sri. vs. Patil, Advocate for R» 1,
Sri. Ganesh Naik, Advocate for R-2)
EV
¥\)
THIS MFA FILED 0/s 173(1) or MV ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.0-5.2008
PASSED IN MVC No.410/2007 oN THE FILEH.O..fi”‘;THE
AI)I”)ITI()NAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TREEUNAL,
YADGIR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PEff1’ri0;N __”}?-Q’I~2_
COMPENSATION, AWARDING COMPEN3ATIjON’ Q?’
RS.2,68,000/– AND sEEK1Nomp RIf3D’UC’1*1O~1\T’–_ .o’:”€’«
COMPENSATION.
This MFA coming on ,for aédrnissionyythis
Court delivered the follovvingid 2
Though the matter’ today, with
consent of the the same is
heard on Judgment. For
the ‘parties would be referred
to, as they are’ olairn petition.
have the learned counsel for the
and the”eiaimant–respondent and perused the
‘vrVe<:_Oi"..<i.
d3′, This appeal, filed by the insurance company,
the liability fastened on it to pay the
cornpensattion as well as the quantum of compensation.
uh’ The teamed counsel appearing for the appeilantinsurance
9?
Av
dd ” ‘No. /6072M’ ‘arid
ex
.3
company firstly contended that the driver of the offending
vehicle had no valid and effective license to drive the vehicle
on the date of accident and therefore, the app:elalant–
insurance company is not liable to ”
compensation. Secondly he contended that’-
Cornmitted error in taking the pern14ans§:nt:’phyhs-iclalldiisability
either
at 50% to determine the corn-pensatyiori
towards ‘loss of future earningps_’__,V@__
4. Perppvcontra, appearing for
the support of the
Judgment Tribunal.
5. Jcornpany has not disputed the
facturn of involvement of goods Tempo bearing
A
its’? coverage of insurance policy.
of the Tribunal that the accident in
question; to rash and negligent driving of the driver
the offending vehicle remain un–chal1enged. Thus, the
d.poi11tsA”that arise for my consideration are:
.tep[1fenevve..dE__pdil’oVir1.l28.«0.%1~_,l2004 to 27.04.2007 and therefore,
‘there-Vis”v.no:fsiil:i_stance in the contention of the learned
and effective license to drive the vehicle and that the
l’i-risnrlance company is not liable t.o pay the compensation.
K :ll.c__c5:ordingly, i answer point No.[i) against the appellant.
4
i) Whethei’ the driver of the offending vehicle had
valid and effective license to drive the vehicle as
on the date of accident?.
ii) Whether Tribunal is justified in taking 50%
permanent physical disability to deterniilnepthe
compensation payable towards
earnings’ of the injured’? 0
6. Point No. of the
attested copy opfpvihe driver of the
offending had obtained
license up to 21.11.2014 to
drive vvell as ‘heavy goods vehicle’
from to’el._17f05.2003 and once again it is
coiinsel driver of the offending vehicle had no valid
vi-iv’
5
7. Point No. (ii): In so far as the determination
of compensation towards ‘loss of future earnings’ and other
heads is concerned, the wound certificate Ex.P.4 reveals
that the claimant had sustained as many as four ‘i.njiiries
out of which one injury is grievous in natur_e;T””–.Fn:rthe1:g
l
EX.P.34, the disability issued by the
assessed the disability with reference
whoi. b if
that patient is answering t0″:rc.n.tine’-qiiestion Wnbt
operative, of his relatives 8:
friends, \7ai’i;atilo_nVs”‘~in__ misunderstanding is
like a confused, wound mark
over thgffrontali ehanges over operated area,
loss of _sens4atio11.Vo–vei*i_ operated area and found mentally
to hisjihysical growth and age. The doctor
ll1_a:s._:. injured–claimant had suffered 50%
permanent ipliynsical disability. Having regard to the fact
thevalceident had occurred in the year 2006 and the
was aged 18 years, the Tribunal has rightly took
income of the injured at Rs.3000/– per month and
W
6
applying appropriate multiplier determined the
Compensation of Rs.1,92.000/~ towards ‘loss of future
earnings’. On roappreciation of entire material on
record, I do not find any reason to interfere
finding. Accordingly, I answer point No.
the appellant–ir1surance companyandpasshthpelifolllovfingi”.1.’ll V
The appeal filed by ins”urai1ce:’~_: is’
dismissed, as the saIn;e»..i_s amount in
deposit if any, to Tribunal for
disburseme:n’tl”to. ll “i”he’lappellant insurance
company shall: amount within
three months!’ o17_lldi~slmissal of the main appeal,
Civil l\lo;”‘l’50062 / 2009 do not survive for
consi.dlei7atio,ri’;–,_l ”