Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt. Gangamma on 25 July, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29555
MFA No. 4694 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.4694 OF 2019(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
NEELGIRI PLAZA,
MCC 'B' BLOCK,
MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD,
DAVANAGERE,
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE,
144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GANGAMMA
Digitally signed by B W/O. LATE. RUDRAPPA,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KALLAVANAGATHIHALLI VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. ANJINAPPA M.,
S/O. MURTHAPPA,
OWNER AND RIDER OF THE MOTOR BIKE,
KNO. KA-16/EE-7596,
UDIGERE VILLAGE,
MUTTUGADURU POST,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29555
MFA No. 4694 of 2019
(BY SMT. HEMAVATHI J., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 ANJINAPPA M SD)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.11.2018 PASSED IN MVC
NO.425/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MACT, HOLALKERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.9,39,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section-173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act'), arises from the judgment and award dated 14.11.2018, passed by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Holalkere, in MVC No.425/2017.
2. The respondents herein filed a claim petition under Section-166 of the MV Act seeking just and proper compensation on account of death of Mounesh, S/o. of Late Rudrappa who succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident on 26.06.2016. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation in a sum of Rs.9,39,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum. The insurance company is in appeal challenging the liability, as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
-3-NC: 2024:KHC:29555 MFA No. 4694 of 2019
3. Learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side, and the rider of the motorcycle was also not holding a valid Driving License as of the date of the accident, and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and the insurance company has not produced cogent evidence to substantiate that the rider had no valid license, and the Tribunal considering the same has rightly fastened liability to pay the compensation on the insurance company, and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been examined.
6. The death of Mounesh S/o. Late Rudrappa on 26.06.2016 in a road traffic accident is not in dispute. The appellant
- insurance company took a defence that the rider had no valid driving license as of the date of the accident, and to substantiate, examined RW-2 the Investigating Officer, who in his evidence stated that the charge-sheet was filed against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section-3, read with Section-181 of M.V. Act, and at the time of the accident, the rider was not having a valid driving license.
-4-NC: 2024:KHC:29555 MFA No. 4694 of 2019
7. The Tribunal referencing the decision of this court in the case of UNITED INDIA INS. CO. Ltd. Vs. SMT. RATHNA AND ANOTHER, reported in ILR 2016 KAR 1935 held that merely taking defence in the objection that the charge-sheet is filed against the rider of the offending vehicle for not having valid driving license does not mean that the rider of the motorcycle had no driving license. As such, the defence taken by respondent No.2 is not justifiable, and therefore in the absence of clear evidence, the contention of the insurance company is not sustainable, and accordingly fastened the liability on the insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation.
8. The Tribunal instead of assessing the notional income of the deceased at Rs.9,500/- per month has assessed the income at Rs.6000/- per month. However, erroneously deducted 1/3rd towards personal income instead of 50%. However, on redetermination of the notional income of the deceased, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of dependency by applying the appropriate multiplier and proper compensation amount of Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of dependency, and a further sum of Rs.75,000/-towards loss of consortium, loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and proper.
9. I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
-5-NC: 2024:KHC:29555 MFA No. 4694 of 2019
10. The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Jurisdictional Tribunal for disbursal of the same to the claimant.
I. A. No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration in view of disposal of the appeal.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4