Karnataka High Court

Meru Cab Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. Harini Suresh on 4 January, 2021

Author: Alok Aradhe Srishananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021

                      PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA


                MFA NO.11954/2012
                       C/W
                MFA NO.1481/2013

IN.M. F. A. NO. 11954/2012
BETWEEN:

MERU CAB COMPANY PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 90/4
ZONASHA ALPHA BUILDING
2ND FLOOR, ABOVE STAPLES
MUNEKOLALA, VARTHUR HOBLI
BANGALORE - 560 037.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
MR. ANIL PANDEY.                         ...APPELLANT

(By SRI. UDHAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADV., A/W
    SRI. SANTHOSH. S. GOGI, ADV)

AND:

1.     SMT. HARINI SURESH
       W/O. LATE MR V SURESH KUMAR
       AGE: MAJOR, R/A PLOT NO.545
                           2


     14TH STREET, 4TH SECTOR
     K.K. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 078

2.   MR. DHANUSH BHARADWAJ SURESH
     S/O. LATE MR. V. SURESH KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 15 YRS, R/A PLOT NO.545
     14TH STREET, 4TH SECTOR
     K .K NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 078

3.   MR. VIKRANT BHARADWAJ SURESH
     S/O. LATE MR. V. SURESH KUMAR
     AGE ABOUT 3 YRS, R/A PLOT NO. 545
     14TH STREET, 4TH SECTOR
     K. K NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 078.

4.   MR. E. DAYANANDA
     MAJOR, HAVING HIS PLACE OF WORK AT
     ZONASHA ALPHA BUILDING
     2ND FLOOR, ABOVE STAPLES
     MUNEKOLALA, VARTHUR HOBLI
     BANGALORE - 560 037.

5.   BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD
     NO.30, II FLOOR
     HEBBAL RING ROAD
     BANGALORE - 560 024.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
                                  ...RESPONDENTS

     (By Sri. C. K. NANDA KUMAR, Adv., FOR R1 - R3
          R4 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, SRI. A.N.
          KRISHNA SWAMY,ADV., FOR R5)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED :
19.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7214/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, COURT
OF   SMALL   CAUSES,   BANGALORE,   AWARDING    A
                            3


COMPENSATION OF RS 2,04,24,112/- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

                        *******

IN MFA NO. 1481/2013
BETWEEN:

1.     SMT. HARINI SURESH
       W/O. LATE MR V SURESH KUMAR
       AGE: MAJOR, R/A PLOT NO.545
       14TH STREET, 4TH SECTOR
       K .K. NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 078

2.     MR. DHANUSH BHARADWAJ SURESH
       S/O. LATE MR. V. SURESH KUMAR
       AGED ABOUT 15 YRS. R/A PLOT NO.545
       14TH STREET, 4TH SECTOR
       K .K NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 078

3.     MR. VIKRANT BHARADWAJ SURESH
       S/O. LATE MR. V. SURESH KUMAR
       AGE ABOUT 3 YRS. R/A PLOT NO. 545
       14TH STREET, 4TH SECTOR
       K. K NAGAR, CHENNAI - 600 078.

      PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS ARE
      REPRESENTED
      BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1
      SMT. HARINI SURESH.
                                    ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri. C. K. NANDA KUMAR, Adv.,)

AND:

1.     MERU CAB COMPANY PVT. LTD.
       A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
       PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT
                          4


     HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 90/4
     ZONASHA ALPHA BUILDING
     2ND FLOOR, ABOVE STAPLES
     MUNEKOLALA, VARTHUR HOBLI
     BANGALORE - 560 037.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
     MR. ANIL PANDEY

2.   MR. E. DAYANANDA
     MAJOR, HAVING HIS PLACE OF WORK AT
     ZONASHA ALPHA BUILDING
     2ND FLOOR, ABOVE STAPLES
     MUNEKOLALA, VARTHUR HOBLI
     BANGALORE - 560 037.

3.   BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD
     NO.30, II FLOOR
     HEBBAL RING ROAD
     BANGALORE - 560 024.
     REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

                                     ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA SENIOR ADV. A/W
     SRI. SANTHOSH. S. GOGI, ADV FOR R1,
     R2 - NOTICE DISPENSED WITH,
     SRI. A. N. KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV FOR R3.)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED :
19.10.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO.7214/2008 ON THE FILE
OF THE 7TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MEMBER MACT-3,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-3), BANGALORE,
PARTLY   ALLOWING     THE   CLAIM  PETITION   FOR
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
                       ******
                               5


     THESE M.F.As. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY,   V. SRISHANANDA,     J.,  THROUGH   VIDEO
CONFERENCING DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

A service provider by name M/s.Meru Cab Company

Pvt. Ltd., is the first respondent in MVC No.7214/2009 and

the claimants therein have challenged the validity of the

Judgment and Award dated 19th October, 2012 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes

(SCCH-3) Bengaluru. (hereinafter referred to as the

"Tribunal" for short).

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of

these appeals are as under:

A claim petition came to be filed under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Act contending that V.Suresh Kumar,

had hired a Taxi service from M/s.Meru Cabs on 28.8.2009

to go to Bengaluru Airport from his residence. At about

5.40 a.m., the driver of the Taxi bearing Registration

No.KA-03/D-4194 while driving the Taxi on Bengaluru-

Bellary road drove the said Taxi in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed against a lorry bearing Registration

No.KA-03/A-6177. As a result of the accident, Suresh

Kumar died at the spot on account of the injuries sustained

by him in the accident. It is further contended that Suresh

Kumar was holding a senior position in M/s.WIPRO

Technologies Ltd., and had a bright career. It is further

contended that the deceased was getting a monthly

income of Rs.2,79,505/- and since the dependants are the

wife and children have lost their bread winner, sought for

awarding suitable compensation.

3. In pursuance of the notices issued, first and third

respondent who are the service provider and the Insurance

Company have resisted the claim petition by filing a

detailed written statement denying the averments of the

claim petition in toto. The second respondent remained

absent and he was placed exparte.

4. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal raised

the following issues:

"1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 28.08.2009 at about 5.40. a.m. the deceased V. Suresh Kumar was proceeding in Indigo Marina Car bearing No. KA-03-D-4184, near I.A.F, Bellary Road, Bangalore, at that time the driver of the said car drove in high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry bearing No. KA-03-A-6177, thereby caused accident and due to which deceased V. Suresh Kumar sustained grievous injuries and he died on the spot?

2. Whether petitioners prove that they are the LRs of the deceased V. Suresh Kumar?

3. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what quantum and against whom, petitioners are entitle?

4. What order or award?

Additional Issues:

1. Whether respondent No.3 proves that driver of Car bearing No. KA-03-D-4184 did not possess valid driving license on the date of accident?

2. Whether respondent No.3 proves that the owner of the car bearing No. KA-03- D-4148 violated the policy conditions?

5. In order to prove the claim petition averments,

the wife of the deceased got examined herself as PW-1

and relied on the documentary evidence which were

exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-24. On behalf of the

claimants, another witness by name Lakshman T.K. was

examined as PW-2.

6. To counter the evidence placed by the claimants,

on behalf of the respondents, four witnesses were

examined as RWs.1 to 4 and 9 documents were exhibited

and marked as Exs.R1 to R9.

7. On cumulative consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal

allowed the claim petition in part awarding a sum of

Rs.2,04,24,112/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of

petition till realisation and fastened the liability on the first

respondent-Meru Cabs and exonerated the respondents 2

& 3. It is that judgment which is under challenge by the

Insurance Company as well as the claimants.

8. On behalf of the Service Provider M/s.Meru Cab

Company Private Limited, Sri Udhay Holla, learned Senior

Counsel contended that the Tribunal had grossly erred in

exonerating the Insurance Company. He further

contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that

the driver of the Taxi did not possess a valid driving licence

inasmuch as there was no separate endorsement made in

the licence of the driver to drive a transport vehicle. He

has further contended that in view of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Devangan's case reported

in AIR 2017 SC 3668, the appeal of the Service provider

needs to be allowed.

9. In so far as quantum of compensation is

concerned, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the

Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the claimants.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

the claimants contended that the Tribunal did not taken

into consideration the monthly income of the deceased in

proper perspective and erred in awarding meager

compensation. He further contends that the Tribunal did

not consider the grant of compensation on the other

heads. He further contended that the Tribunal awarded

compensation under the heads 'loss of consortium', 'loss of

expectancy', 'transportation of dead body' and 'loss of love

and affection' in a sum of Rs.10,000/- each which is on

the lower side and against the settled principles of law and

thus sought for suitable enhancement. He also contends

that the Tribunal did not consider the future prospectus

and thus sought for re-assessment of the just

compensation.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, contended that the

correctness of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Mukund Devangan's case is now referred to

a larger bench and is further being considered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, this court is required to

postpone the hearing of these appeals.

12. Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the

Insurance Company further contends and draws our

attention to Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the

definition of the driving licence fee is properly construed

and the principles of law enunciated in Mukund

Devangan's case cannot be applied to the case on hand

and thus sought for dismissal of these appeal of the

Service provider.

13. In so far as quantum of compensation is

concerned, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company

submits that the Tribunal has taken into consideration all

the relevant materials and adjudged the just compensation

and therefore sought for dismissal of the appeals of the

claimants as well.

14. In reply, Sri Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel

submits that till the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court is

resolved in respect of the legal principles enunciated in

Mukund Devangan's case, by an appropriate Bench, this

court is bound to follow the dictum as is enunciated in the

said case and thus sought for passing a suitable order.

15. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel has

relied on the judgment reported in (2013) 16 SCC 16 in

the case of Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others.

16. In view of the above factual aspects and rival

contentions of the parties, the points that would arise for

the consideration of this court are:

"(i) Whether the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the Taxi bearing Registration No.KA-03/D-4148 [offending vehicle] did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the Taxi and as such, there is a breach of policy conditions and thus the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the adjudged compensation is erroneous.?

(ii) Whether the quantum of compensation adjudged by the Tribunal is just compensation?

The answer to the above points are in the Negative for the

following:

REASONS

17. In the case on hand, the accidental death of

Suresh Kumar involving a Taxi bearing Registration No.

KA-03/D-4148 [offending vehicle] and a lorry bearing

Registration No.KA-03/A-6177 is not in dispute. Charge

sheet came to be filed against the driver of the Taxi as per

Ex.P-8. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal

that it is the negligence of the driver of the offending

vehicle resulting in the accident, wherein Suresh Kumar

lost his life is well founded.

18. The Tribunal accepted the arguments on behalf

of the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending

vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the

Car for transport purpose and thus dismissed the petition

against the Insurance Company of the Car. It is the

argument of the learned Senior Counsel representing the

Service provider [In MFA No.11954/2012] that the

question of validity of the driving licence where a person

possesses a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV)

whether can drive a vehicle for the purpose, other than

which the licence is granted of a vehicle of the same class,

is no longer res integra and in this regard, he has placed

his reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Mukund Devangan's case referred to supra.

19. To counter the said submission of Sri Uday

Holla, learned Senior Counsel and Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy,

representing the Insurance Company of the Car contended

that the correctness of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Mukund Devangan, is now again the

subject matter of few petitions before the Hon'ble Apex

Court and those petitions are being in the process of

referring to a larger bench and therefore, argued that

awaiting the decision of the larger bench, this matter be

deferred for hearing.

20. In reply, Sri Udhay Holla, learned Senior

Counsel referred the decision rendered in the case of

Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others cited supra.

21. On perusal of the principles of law enunciated in

the said Sarva Shramik Sangha's case, it is crystal clear

that till the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court,

on the issue of the correctness of legal principles

enunciated in Mukund Devangan's case, as is contended

by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company Sri A.N.

Krishnaswamy, this court is governed by the principles of

law enunciated in Mukund Devangan's case. Therefore,

the contentions urged on behalf of the learned counsel for

the Insurance Company, that this court should adjourn the

matter awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as

to the correctness of the principles stated in Mukund

Devangan's case cannot be countenanced in law.

22. Suffice it to say that as on today, this court is

bound by the principles of law enunciated in Mukund

Devangan's case.

23. Applying the legal principles laid down in

Mukund Devangan's case to the facts of this case, it is

not the case of the Insurance Company that driver of the

Taxi did not possess the valid driving licence at all. That is

to say, no separate endorsement on licence is required to

drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle by the RTO.

Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal that there is a

breach of policy condition and thus the Insurance Company

is not liable to pay the adjudged compensation and it

needs to be interfered with by following the dictum laid

down in Mukund Devangan's case. Accordingly, the

point is answered.

24. In so far as quantum of compensation is

concerned, before the Tribunal, the income of the

deceased is established by marking the Salary Certificate

of the deceased at Ex.P19. It is also contended on behalf

of the claimants that the deceased was an efficient

employee of M/s.WIPRO Technologies Ltd., and in this

regard reliance is placed on Ex.P-6. Salary certificate is

marked at Ex.P-19. The Tribunal has discussed about the

income of the deceased at page number 10 of the

impugned judgment. The Tribunal took into consideration

that Exs.P-9 and P-20 includes the allowances and perks

and basic pay and salary of the deceased per month would

be around 2 lakhs. The Tribunal deducted 30% of the

gross income and also deducted 1/3rd towards the

personal expenses of the deceased. Further, the Tribunal

added 30% hike to the income of the deceased. The

deceased was aged 41 years at the time of the accident

and therefore, applied '14' Multiplier. As per Ex.P5

certificate, the deceased had drawn gross salary of

Rs.2,79,505/- per month. PW-2 is the Senior Manager of

the WIPRO Technologies Pvt. Ltd., who has deposed before

the Court about the gross salary paid to the deceased as

per Ex.P-19.

25. As per the settled principles of law, the income

tax and the professional tax are to be deducted from the

salary, income tax at 30% and Professional Tax of

Rs.200/- per month is to be deducted from the gross

salary which comes to Rs.2,44,317/-. Out of which, 1/3rd

has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore,

after deducting 1/3rd from the salary of the deceased, the

monthly income arrived for the dependants would be in a

sum of Rs.1,62,878/-. Hence, the claimants are entitled

for loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.2,73,63,504/-

(Rs.1,62,878/- x 12 x 14) [The calculation arrived is

Rs.2,79,505 less 30% towards income tax and Rs.200/-

towards professional tax = 1,95,454/- and by adding 25%

towards future prospects as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited

Vs,. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16

SCC 680, [25% of Rs.1,95,454/-] a sum of Rs.48,863/- is

added to the monthly income of the deceased, which

works out to Rs.2,44,317/-] as against the compensation

of Rs.2,04,24,112/- awarded by the Tribunal. In so far as

the compensation awarded towards conventional heads, all

the three claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-

each towards loss of consortium and filial love and

affection.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal of the Insurance Company in MFA No.11954/2012 is rejected and the appeal of the claimants in MFA No.1481/2013 is allowed in part.

(ii) In modification of the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.2,73,63,504/- with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization as against a sum of Rs.2,04,24,112/- awarded by the Tribunal.