Karnataka HC says it can enhance MV compensation even in appeal from insurer

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court held that even in an appeal filed by the insurer, it is open for the court to enhance the compensation, if it is submitted by the claimants in the course of oral arguments. Justice CM Poonacha said this while enhancing the compensation in appeals filed by an insurance company.

The accident had occurred on July 19, 2013 in Bengaluru when a truck knocked down the motorcycle while Guruvanth, who was working as a tele-caller, was riding pillion with D Francis Zavier. Guruvanath died and Francis sustained injuries.

In the claim petition moved by Guruvanath’s family, an accident tribunal in Bengaluru awarded compensation of Rs 8,27,300 with interest at 9 per cent per annum. On the other hand, Francis had moved the claim petition before a tribunal in Mandya and was awarded a compensation of Rs 2,98,469 along with 9 per cent interest. In both the claim proceedings, the tribunals had directed the insurance company to pay the compensation.

Challenging these orders, the insurer contended that the driver of the insured truck did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Meanwhile, during the hearing, the claimants orally submitted that the compensations awarded were on the lower side and prayed for enhancement.

Opposing this submission, the insurance company argued that in the appeals filed by the insurer, it is not open for the courts to enhance the quantum of compensation when the claimants have not filed any appeal or cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation.

Justice CM Poonacha noted that the apex court in the Surekha v/s Santosh case held that even if there is no appeal, the court has to award "just compensation" if the claimants are entitled to the same. Referring to the power of the appellate court under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the court said the appellate court is entitled to enhance the compensation in an appeal filed by the insurer without an appeal/cross objection filed by the claimant. “Such an interpretation is required to be made also keeping in mind the fact that the Act of 1988 (Motor Vehicles Act) is a beneficial legislation,” Justice Poonacha said.

In the case at hand, Justice Poonacha said that while the insurer is liable to pay the compensation, it is with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, since the driver had not renewed his driving licence which stood expired as on August 31, 2011.

The family members of Guruvanth were awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs 13,50,900 with 7 per cent interest per annum, from the date of petition till date of payment while Francis was awarded Rs 4,26,600 with interest at 7 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.