The Divisional Manager vs Jijabai And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3520 Kant

                         1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

             MFA No.202339/2018 (MV)

BETWEEN

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE DR. JAWALI
COMPLEX, SUPER MARKET KALABURAGI
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE
NEAR NEHRU STADIUM ROAD,
BIDAR NOW THROUGH ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KALBURAGI
                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    JIJABAI W/O DEVIDAS
      GE: 52 YRS, OCC: LABOUR

2.    DEVIDAS S/O MUNNA
      GE: 55 YRS, OCC: LABOUR

      BOTH R/O RAMPUR THANDA CHILKI (J)
      NOW AT ADARSH COLONY BIDAR

3.    BHEEMASHANKER S/O KRISHNAPPA
      AGE: 30 YRS, OCC: BUSINESS
                                  2




      R/O MALKHED, TQ:SEDAM
      DIST: KALABURAGI-585210
      (OWNER OF ASHOK LEYLAND BEARING
      NO.KA-28-B-4599)

4.    BAJARANG S/O DEVIDAS JADHAV LAMANI
      AGE:MAJOR, R/O IRAKPALLI
      THANDA, TQ:NARAYANKHE
      DIST: RANGAREDDY
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

   THIS MFA FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING
THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 01.09.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDL. MACT, BIDAR
IN MVC NO.410/2016 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS
PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the insurance company under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short

'M.V.Act) against the judgment and award dated

01.09.2018 passed in MVC No.410/2016 on the file of the

Additional Senior Civil Judge (CJM) and Additional MACT at

Bidar (for short 'Tribunal').

2. Brief facts leading up to filing of the present

appeal are that one Savitabai along with other labourers

boarded a tractor bearing registration No.KA-28/TB-7805

and trolleys bearing registration No.KA-28/TB-6078 and

KA-28/TB6079 on 24.11.2015 to go to Dhatargi Renuka

Sugar Factory for sugarcane cutting work. When the

tractor was proceeding on Humnabad - Kalaburagi road, at

about 5.00 a.m. and when it reached Kinni bridge, the

tractor and trolleys had covered 95% of the bridge, at that

time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-28/B-4599

(henceforth referred as 'offending vehicle') driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner came from

Kalaburagi side and dashed the tractor and trolleys. Due

to the impact, the labourers thrown out from the tractor

and sustained grievous injuries. Four labourers inclusive

of Savitabai died on the spot.

3. Thereupon, a claim petition was filed under

Section 166 of the M. V. Act by the claimants, who being

the parents of the deceased, seeking compensation of

rupees thirty lakhs on the premise that the said Savitabai

was aged 22 years, working as a labourer and earning

Rs.12,000/- per month and that she was contributing her

income for maintenance of her old aged parents. That the

untimely death of the deceased due to the accident

occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver, has caused financial and

emotional distress to the claimants.

4. Upon service of notice, respondents appeared

and filed their statement of objections. Respondent No.1

contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not

negligent and in fact it was the driver of the tractor, who

was negligent. It was contended that the vehicle was

insured with respondent No.2 - insurance company and

policy was valid from 11.01.2015 to 10.01.2016 and the

driver of the offending vehicle was possessing valid and

effective licence and that the compensation, if any, shall

be paid by respondent No.2 - insurance company. Hence,

sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against

respondent No.1.

5. Respondent No.2 - insurance company on the

other hand denied the mode and manner of the accident

and contended that the accident occurred due to the

contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of the

tractor and the lorry. Hence, sought for dismissal of the

claim petition.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the

Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. One

Jijabai, the mother of the deceased has been examined as

PW.2 while one Rathod Meera, the mother of the deceased

Krishna, who is claimant in the connected matter has been

examined as PW.2 and exhibited 16 documents as Exs.P1

to P16. No evidence has been led and no witness has been

examined on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Tribunal based on the evidence held that

the death of the deceased was on account of rash and

negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle.

Consequently, held that the claimant being the parents of

the deceased are entitled for total compensation of

Rs.12,39,600/- together with interest at 9% per annum

from the date of claim petition till its realization. Being

aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed by the

insurance company challenging the aforesaid judgment

and order.

8. Though the matter is posted for issuance of

notice, the matter is taken up for consideration, if the

insurance company has made out a case for interference.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant

reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum

submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding

compensation of Rs.12,39,600/- together with interest at

9% per annum without their being any material evidence

available on record. He further submitted that the

deceased Savitabai was married, her husband was alive

and without impleading him, the Tribunal has taken into

consideration only the claim of the parents of the deceased

for the purpose of deduction of personal expenses at 1/3 rd.

He further submitted that deduction towards personal and

living expenses of the deceased ought to have been at

50% and addition of 40% towards future prospect was

unjustified. Hence, sought for allowing of the appeal.

10. The accident in question is not in dispute. The

offending vehicle possessing valid and effective licence as

on the date of the accident is also not in dispute. The

accident is of the year 2015. Though the claimants have

claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per

month as a labour, no evidence has been produced. This

Court in the absence of any evidence with regard to the

income of the victims of the road traffic accident takes into

consideration the chart prepared by the Karnataka State

Legal Service Authority. As per the chart, the notional

income of the road traffic accident victims for the year

2015 is fixed at Rs.8,000/- per month.

11. In the instant case, the accident occurred on

24.11.2015. The Tribunal has assessed the notional

income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is

far less than the chart prepared by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority and that itself is sufficient to hold

that the income assessed by the Tribunal do not require

any interference. Further, the award of 40% towards

future prospects by the Tribunal is just and proper as per

the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VS.

PRANAY SETHI [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. The tribunal

has awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and

funeral expenses, which also in terms of the law laid down

by the Apex Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS NANU

RAM ALIAS CHUHRU RAM AND OTHERS [2018)

18 SCC 130], which clarified in the subsequent

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UNITED

INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., VS. SATINDER

KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR & ORS. [2020 SCC

ONLINE SC 410].

12. In view of the above facts and circumstances

of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex

Court as above, the appellant has not made out any

ground justifying issuance of notice to the respondents.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

appeal be dismissed as the appellant has not made out any

ground for interference.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The amount in deposit be transmitted to the

concerned Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srt