Karnataka High Court
Smt Ayisa vs The Manager on 12 January, 2021
Author: Alok Aradhe Rangaswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY
M.F.A. NO.7334 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. AYISA
W/O ENTHEENKUTTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
2. SRI. ENTHEEN KUTTY
S/O POKKAR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
3. MR. FAIZAL
S/O ENTHEENKUTTY
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE R/A NO.577,
PALAKKATHODI,
KADAMPUZHA,
MARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHYATH,
KERALA-676 553.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA.B., ADVOCATE FOR BPDS ASSOCIATES)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, SHANKAR HOUSE,
2
NO.1, RM VILAS EXTENSION,
MEKHRI CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 080.
2. B. RAVIRAJ SHETTY
S/O K. JAGANNATH SHETTY,
MAJOR,
R/A NO.318,
9TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
HRBR LAYOUT, BANASAWADI
BANGALORE-560 017.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.JAIPRAKASH,
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SERVICE OF NOTICE ON RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DISPENSED
WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.01.2021)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.06.2014, PASSED IN
MVC NO.391/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XXVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
NATARAJ RANGASWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for orders, as records are
received from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it is
taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is filed by the claimants
challenging the exoneration of the insurer from the liability
to pay the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-13) (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC No.391/2013 in terms
of the Judgment and Award dated 03.06.2014.
3. Appellants herein will henceforth be referred to
as 'claimants'. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein will
henceforth be referred to as the 'insurer' and 'owner'
respectively of the offending vehicle involved in the
accident.
4. The claim petition discloses that the claimants
are the legal representatives of Mr.Ayyoob P.T. who was
26 years old and was employed as a Logistics Assistant
Manager at Asthetics Audio and Video Private Limited,
Bengaluru. It is claimed that on 16.06.2012 at about 5:45
p.m., the said Mr. Ayyoob P.T was trying to cross the outer
ring road near Babusapalya junction and was standing on
the center median. At that time, a tanker lorry bearing
registration No.KA-02-B-7305 (henceforth referred to as
the 'offending vehicle') which was driven rash and
negligently dashed against the said Mr.Ayyoob P.T., who
sustained serious injuries and died on the way to Bowring
hospital, Bengaluru. The claimants contended that they
had lost emotional and financial support of the deceased.
They alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle was
negligent and responsible for the accident and that case in
Crime No.53/2012 was registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the
Indian Penal Code against him. The claimants, therefore,
filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle.
5. The insurer contested the claim petition and
contended that the driver did not possess a valid licence
and that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.
6. The claimant No.1 was examined as PW.1 and
an employee of Aesthetix Technologies India (P) Limited
was examined as PW.2 and they marked documents
Exs.P1 to P22. The administrative officer of the insurer
and ARTO, Indiranagar, were examined as RWs.1 and 2
respectively and they marked documents Exs.R1 to R11.
7. The Tribunal based on the evidence of PW.1
and the complaint lodged against the driver of the
offending vehicle and the consequent spot mahazar, spot
sketch and IMV report (Exs.P3 to P5) and the charge sheet
(Ex.P6) filed by the jurisdictional Police in the discharge of
their official duty, held that the driver of the offending
vehicle was negligent and was responsible for the accident.
8. In so far as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal considered the age of the
deceased at 26 years and his income at a sum of
Rs.17,000/- per month and factored 50% as the loss of
future prospects and awarded the following compensation:
Sl. Heads under which Amount
No. compensation awarded (in Rupees)
1 Loss of Dependency 21,42,000/-
2 Loss of estate 20,000/-
3 Loss of love and affection 12,000/-
ffuneral
4 Funeral expenses 25,000/-
Total 21,99,000/-
9. In so far as the liability to pay the
compensation is concerned, based on Ex.R11, extract of
driving licence, the Tribunal held that the driver of the
offending vehicle though possessed a licence to drive a
hazardous goods vehicle, which was in force from
17.02.2009 to 16.02.2010, it was not renewed. The
Tribunal relied upon section sub-section (2) of Section 14
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which indicates that a
driving licence issued or renewed in respect of a transport
vehicle would be in force for a period of three years and in
respect of a vehicle carrying dangerous or hazardous
goods would be effective for a period of one year and the
renewal thereof is subject to the condition that the driver
undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed
syllabus. Since the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a licence to drive the offending vehicle as on the
date of the accident, the Tribunal exonerated the insurer
from paying any compensation, but directed the owner of
the offending vehicle to pay the compensation awarded by
it.
10. Feeling aggrieved by the exoneration of the
insurer to pay the compensation, the claimants have filed
this appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the claimants contended
that in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in the
case of Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and
another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 and in the case
of Shamanna and another vs. The Divisional
Manager, Oriental Insurance Company and others
reported in 2018(9) SCC 650, the insurer cannot escape
the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal and it is entitled to pay and recover the
compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle.
12. Learned counsel for the insurer did not dispute
the fact that the offending vehicle was covered by a policy
of insurance, which was issued by it and which was in
force. It also did not dispute the fact that the deceased
was a third party and therefore, the claimants were
entitled to claim compensation from the insurer.
13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex court
in the aforesaid judgments, the insurer is entitled to pay
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and recover the
same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
14. Hence, this appeal is allowed in part and the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in
MVC No.391/2013 in so far as it relates to exonerating the
insurer from its liability to pay the compensation is set
aside. The impugned judgment and award in so far as it
relates to the quantum of compensation and interest
awarded by the Tribunal and apportionment of the
compensation is upheld.
15. The insurer shall pay the compensation to the
claimants as directed by the Tribunal and recover the same
from the owner of the offending vehicle.
16. The insurer shall deposit the compensation
amount along with interest as determined by the Tribunal
within one month from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
sma
