Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 251 (KAR)

Adappa Bandu Magadum v. Ramesh Bhimarao Sindagi

2021-02-11

N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The appeals in MFA No.102942/2015 and MFA No.102940/2015 are by the owner of the offending vehicle, on whom the liability is fastened on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess the requisite endorsement on the Driving Licence. 2. It cannot be in dispute that merely because the driver did not possess the requisite endorsement, the Insurance Company would be exonerated of its liability. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewanganv.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., reported in AIR2017SC3668has held that the merely because the driver of the vehicle did not possess the requisite endorsement to drive the transport vehicle that would not exonerate the Insurance company from its liability. 3. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal insofar as it relates to saddling the liability on the owner is set aside and the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award passed in favour of the claimants. 4. MFA Crob No.100002/2018 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. The principal contention is that on assessment of the evidence adduced before it has proceeded to award the following sums: Pain and Suffering Rs.45,000/­ Medical Expenses, Conveyance, Nourishment and Attendant Charges Rs.1,25,000/­ Loss of earning during treatment period Rs.30,000/­ Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/­ TOTAL Rs.2,30,000/­ 6. It is the principal contention of the learned counsel for the cross objector that though the medical bills were produced for a sum of Rs.2,02,629/, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.1,25,000/on the ground that the bills were exfacie inflated. He submits that the medical bills could not be inflated and are a true reflection on the actual money spent. 7. The Tribunal, apart from stating that the bills were inflated has not recorded any finding as to how the bills were inflated. There appears to be no reason for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the bills were inflated. I am therefore of the view that the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,02,629/towards medical expenses, which he had expended and which has been evidenced by the production of the medical bills. 8. The other sums awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper and do not require any enhancement. I am therefore of the view that the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs.2,02,629/towards medical expenses, which he had expended and which has been evidenced by the production of the medical bills. 8. The other sums awarded by the Tribunal are just and proper and do not require any enhancement. Consequently, the claimant would be entitled to the following sums: Pain and Suffering Rs.45,000/­ Medical Expenses, Conveyance, Nourishment and Attendant Charges Rs.2,02,629/­ Loss of earning during treatment period Rs.30,000/­ Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/­ TOTAL Rs.3,07,629/­ 9. In all, the claimant would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,07,629/instead of Rs.2,30,000/awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the complete payment. 10. Accordingly, the cross objection is allowed in part. 11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount before the Tribunal within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. The amount in deposit, if any, before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement. 13. The amount, if any deposited by the owner shall be refunded to the L.Rs. of the appellant.