Karnataka High Court
The Manage, Shri Ram General Insurance ... vs Reshma D/O Late Ishwar Mamane And Ors on 25 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB
MFA No. 200733 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200733 OF 2022 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
SHRIRAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SITAPUR, JAYAPUR
(RAJASTAN-302022) INDIA,
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO.3/4, 3RD FLOOR,
S V ARCADE, BELEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
Digitally signed
by OFF BHANNERUGHATTA ROAD,
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ IIMB POST, BENGALURU-560076.
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RESHMA
D/O LATE ISHWAR MAMANE,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE MANTHAL,
TALUK: BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR- 585 327.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB
MFA No. 200733 of 2022
2. PRITAM
S/O LATE ISHWAR MAMANE,
AGE: 9 YEARS.
3. ISHITA
D/O LATE ISHWAR MAMANE
AGE: 7 YEARS.
4. LAXMIBAI
W/O VIJAYAKUMAR MAMANE
AGE: 48 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. VILLAGE MANTHAL,
TALUK: BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR - 585 327.
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3 ARE MINOR,
U/G OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER I.E.,
RESPONDENT NO.1.
5. SAJID HUSSAIN
S/O ZAHED HUSSAIN,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OWNER OF APE AUTO,
BEARING REGISTER NO.KA-56/1048,
R/O. H.NO. 29-39, TRIPURANTH,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DISTRICT: BIDAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. SHAMBULING S. SALIMATH, ADV. FOR R5)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.01.2021
PASSED IN MVC NO.695/2015 II ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT, BIDAR, SITTING AT
BASAVAKALYAN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB
MFA No. 200733 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company herein i.e., respondent No.2 therein being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.01.2021 passed in M.V.C.No.695/2015 by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short), wherein the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents for grant of compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. The appellant is the respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB MFA No. 200733 of 2022 petitioners and respondent No.5 is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that:
On 06.06.2015 at about 05:30 p.m., one Ishwar Mamane (deceased in this case) boarded Ape Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-56/1048 to go to Manthal from Basavakalyan and the driver of the said Auto Rickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the Auto Rickshaw turned turtle near Athlapur Cross on NH-09. As a result, Ishwar Mamane fell down and struck under the offending Auto Rickshaw and succumbed on the spot. As such, the claimants being the legal representatives of the said Inshwar Mamane have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. After service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their written statement denying the -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB MFA No. 200733 of 2022 contents of the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
5. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, petitioner No.1 got examined as PW.1 and got marked 16 documents as Exs.P1 to P16. On the other hand, respondent No.2 examined its official as RW.1 and got examined another witness as RW.2 and got marked 3 documents as per Exs.R1 to R3.
6. After assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioners and awarded a compensation of Rs.16,83,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. The said judgment and award is challenged by the Insurance Company in this appeal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel Sri Sudarshan M., for appellant, learned counsel Sri Sanjeev Kumar C. -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB MFA No. 200733 of 2022 Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Shambuling S Salimath for respondent No.5.
8. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal grossly erred while allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants for the reason that, the charge sheet placed by the petitioner as per Ex.P6 depicts that the vehicle is seized from the accident spot on 07.06.2015 and on 19.08.2015 it is shown to have been released in favour of the owner. However, as per Ex.P7-spot panchanama drawn on 07.06.2015, the vehicle was seized on the same day by showing the damage on the left side of body of the Auto Rickshaw. In such circumstance, there is a doubt arise about the involvement of the vehicle in the alleged accident. Further, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the vehicle on 25.06.2016 in the Police Station premises, who has opined that there is no visible damages found on the Auto Rickshaw. Hence, the involvement of the said Auto Rickshaw in the accident is not proved by the above circumstance. He would also contend that the -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB MFA No. 200733 of 2022 Tribunal has also awarded interest at the rate of 7% instead of 6% to the compensation awarded. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the Tribunal, after meticulously considering the documents and evidence, has rightly allowed the claim petition in part in a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties so also having perused the records made available before us, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity and requires any interference by this Court?"
11. As could be seen from records, in order to prove the accident in question, the petitioners relied the FIR and complaint registered by the jurisdiction Police -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB MFA No. 200733 of 2022 against the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing Registration No.KA-56/1048 in Crime No.78/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. Subsequently, the said Police also filed charge sheet as per Ex.P6 against the driver of Auto Rickshaw. Admittedly, the said charge sheet has not been challenged by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Nevertheless, the spot mahazar placed at Ex.P8 also depicts that the accident was caused on 06.06.2015 at Athlapur cross due to the negligent riding of the Auto Rickshaw by its driver and due to which, Ishwar died. Moreover, the coverage of the Insurance Policy of the appellant-Insurance Company to the offending vehicle is not disputed by the appellant. In such circumstance, the Tribunal rightly fastened the liability to the Insurance Company.
12. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal rightly assessed the compensation by considering the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- along with future prospect 40% since the age of the petitioner was below 40 years at the -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB MFA No. 200733 of 2022 time of incident. Further, the Tribunal rightly deducted 1/3rd of his income and considered the multiplier at '18' and granted Rs.16,12,872/- towards loss of dependency. Further, the Tribunal also granted Rs.70,000/- towards loss of consortium thus, totaling to Rs.16,83,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Thus, we find no error in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, however the interest conferred by the Tribunal at the rate of 7% is on higher side and the same has to be modified to 6% to the compensation amount. In view of the same, we answer the point raised above in partly affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company is allowed in part.
ii. The judgment and award dated
30.01.2021 passed in
M.V.C.No.695/2015 by the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Bidar, Sitting at Basavakalyan is modified only in
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:5333-DB MFA No. 200733 of 2022 respect of the interest conferred by the Tribunal.
iii. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to pay the interest at the rate of 6% to the compensation amount instead of 7% conferred by the Tribunal.
iv. Amount if any deposited, the same shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT;BN