(Prayer: This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act, against judgment and award dated 10.02.2014, passed in Mvc.No.719/2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation and etc.

This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act 1988, against judgment and award dated 12.02.2014, passed in Mvc.No.718/2008 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Belgaum, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation and etc.)

Oral Judgment

1. MFA No.102259/2014 is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') challenging the judgment and award dated 12.02.2014 passed in MVC No.719/2008 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Belagavi (for short 'the Tribunal') by the claimant questioning the 50% liability on the Tempo-Trax passenger vehicle even though Tempo-Trax passenger vehicle and its insurer are not made as party in the present petition and also on the ground of not considering the disability of the claimant.

2. MFA No.102258/2014 is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act challenging the judgment and award dated 12.02.2014 passed in MVC No.718/2008 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Belagavi (for short 'the Tribunal') by the claimant questioning the 50% liability on the Tempo-Trax passenger vehicle even though Tempo-Trax passenger vehicle and its insurer are not made as party in the present petition.

3. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment passed in MVC No.718/2005 and MVC No.719/2008 dated 10.02.2014 because they arise out of the same accident. Hence, common judgment is being delivered.

5. Claimant in both cases have filed claim petitions under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, claiming compensation in respect of injuries sustained by them in road traffic accident that has taken place on 22.08.2003 at 10.00 p.m. near Bachi-Vengurla road by the use of lorry bearing registration No.KA-23/A-7575.

6. Claimant in MVC No.718/2008 has suffered simple injuries and claimant in MVC No.719/2008 has suffered grievous injury i.e., fracture of his left Radius and Ulna.

7. After framing issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that claimant in MVC No.718/2008 is totally entitled for compensation of ₹5,500/- and claimant in M.V.C. No. 719/2008 is entitled for ₹11,000/-. It is further held that there is collision between two vehicles that is Tempo-Trax and truck. The owner and insurer of Tempo-Trax are not made as parties. Charge-sheet is filed against them. considering these aspects; the Tribunal has directed respondent-insurer of truck only to pay 50% of the total compensation amount.

8. Not satisfied by the same, claimants of both cases are before this Court.

9. Heard arguments of both sides.

10. Learned counsel for appellant Sri Hanumant R Latur would submit that claimant in both cases are inmates of the truck. They have filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act claiming compensation based on 'No fault liability' principle. They have to establish only the usage of the vehicle and not rashness and negligence. However, the Tribunal has fastened liability only 50% on respondents, which is erroneous. He would further submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal without considering disability in MVC No719/2008 is improper. Hence, prayed for allowing both the petitions.

11. In this regard, learned counsel for appellant places reliance on the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court:

          i) Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board in Civil Appeal No.7143 of 2022;

          ii) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Urmila Halder in Civil Appeal.... 2024(C)SLP(Civil)No.6260/2019.

12. Learned counsel Sri Rajashekar S. Arani for Sri B.M.Angadi for respondent No.2 would submit that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, reasonable, fair and it requires no interference.

13. The Tribunal has rightly not considered the disability of claimant in MVC No.719/2008 because 2 years after the accident, claimant has obtained driving license by appearing before the concerned authorities. Hence, there is no disability to him. Hence, prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.

14. Having heard arguments of both sides, verifying the appeal papers and Trial Court records, the points that arise for consideration are:

          "1) whether fastening 50% liability on the Tempo-Trax owner and insurer by the Tribunal in the absence of making them as parties in the appeal is proper?

          2) Whether claimant in MVC No.719/2008 is entitled for compensation under new amended Act of Section 164 of M.V Act.?"

15. Finding of this Court on point No.1 is in negative and point No.2 is in affirmative for the following:

          REASONS

          The facts established before the Tribunal are that claimant in both cases were traveling in Tempo-Trax bearing registration No.GA-01/N-1760 and the lorry bearing registration No. KA-23/A-7575 dashed against the Tempo-Trax and caused the accident in the middle of the road. Due to the accident, claimant in MVC No.718/2008 has sustained two simple injuries as per Ex.P.5 and claimant in M.V.C.719/2008 has sustained a grievous injury i.e., fracture of left Ulna joint and middle 1/3rd of Radius bone.

16. The Tribunal held that even though the Tempo- Trax is not made as party, respondents of this case i.e. truck owner and insurer are liable to pay only 50% of the compensation.

17. This is the petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V Act under 'No fault liability' principle. Hence, who is rash and who is negligent in causing the accident cannot be the ground to decide the petition. In the absence of owner and insurer of the truck as party in the case, the Tribunal ought not to direct the respondents only to pay 50% out of the compensation amount. Respondents No.1 & 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

18. As far as injuries are concerned, claimant in MVC No.718/2008 has sustained only simple injuries. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with.

19. As far as M.V.C.No.719/2008 is concerned by placing reliance on Urmila Halder's case cited supra as the legislation is benevolent legislation, it would necessarily entail the benefit to be passed on to the claimant in the absence of any specific bar to the same. Further this Court places reliance on the judgment of Ram Murthi's case cited supra where the Apex Court held that Provision of Section 140 which is part of chapter X was omitted by the Act of 32 of 2019. Chapter XI was substituted with section 164 for payment of compensation in case of death in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and in case of grievous hurt Rs.2,50,000/- and thus awarded the compensation under the amended Provision.

20. The liability of insurance Company has not been interfered with. Only the computational mode and modality have been further clarified and thus in case of grievous injury, without going further, the claimant is entitled for ₹2,50,000/-.

21. Hence, this Court passes the following:

ORDER

          i) MFA No.102259/2014 filed under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act is allowed.

          ii) MFA No.102258/2014 filed under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act is dismissed.

          iii) The judgment and award dated 12.02.2014 passed in MVC No.719/2008 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Belagavi is modified by holding that claimant is entitled for total compensation of ₹2,50,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

          iv) No order as to costs.

          v) Draw modified decree accordingly.

          vi) Registry to transmit the TCR to the Tribunal forthwith.