Karnataka High Court
Smt A Devaki vs Sri P R Anilkumar on 10 August, 2022
Bench: J.M.Khazi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
M.F.A.NO.8300 OF 2011 (MV)
C/W
M.F.A.NO.6788 OF 2011 (MV),
M.F.A.NO.6789 OF 2011 (MV),
M.F.A.NO.8301 OF 2011 (MV)
IN M.F.A.NO.8300 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.25, 1ST FLOOR,
SHANKARNARAYANA BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SANDEEP KUMAR,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT N PRAVEENA
W/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY REDDY
@ CHINNA REDDY
26 YEARS,
2. SRI N MOBILI REDDY
S/O LATE RAMA REDDY,
72 YEARS,
2
3. SMT CHINNAMMA
W/O N MAGILI REDDY,
56 YEARS,
4. MASTER SAI DESHWANTH
S/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY REDDY
@ CHINNA REDDY,
11 YEARS,
SINCE THE 4TH PETITIONER IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN i.e., FIRST PETITIONER
ALL ARE RESIDING AT JEGURAKULAPALLI VILLAGE,
MANGALAPALLI POST, THAVANAMAPALLI,
MANDALAM, CHITOOR DISTRICT
5. SRI P R ANIL KUMAR
S/O P RAJA REDDY,
MAJOR NO.52, KOTUR THIMMAKUPPAM POST,
BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL,
CHITOOR DISTRICT, A.P-517002
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. K.N.HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4;
V/O/DTD 23.06.2015, R5 SERVICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
IN MVC NO.490/2010 DATED 03.03.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT; ALLOW
THE APPEAL WITH COSTS.
IN M.F.A.NO.6788 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SMT A DEVAKI,
W/O LATE REDDAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
3
2. SMT. A. KUPPAMMA,
W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
3. KUMARI A. BHAGYA SRI,
D/O LATE REDDAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
4. KUMARI A. GAUTHAMI,
D/O LATE REDDAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
(SINCE THE 4TH APPELLANT IS MINOR
SHE IS DULY REPRESENTED BY HER
MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
i.e., THE 1ST PETITIONER)
ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOLLAPALLI VILLAGE,
YARLAPALLI POST, GRELA MANDALAM,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 001
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K N HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI P R ANILKUMAR,
S/O P. RAJA REDDY,
NO.52, KOTUR,
THIMMAKUPPAM POST,
BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT - 517 001
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.25,
1ST FLOOR,
SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING,
M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
4
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AWARD AMOUNT UNDER THE ABOVE SAID
GROUNDS, BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.03.2011, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-9) AT BANGALORE, IN MVC
NO.491/2010 BY ENHACING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
UNDER THE ABOVE SAID HEAD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.6789 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SMT N PRAVEENA
W/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY REDDY
@ CHINNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
2. SRI N MOGILI REDDY,
S/O LATE RAMREDDY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
3. SMT CHINNAMMA
W/O N MOGILI REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
4. MASTER SAI DESHWANT
S/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY REDDY
@ CHINNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
JEGURAKULAPALLI VILLAGE,
MANGALAPALLI POST,
THAVANAMPALLI MANDALAM,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K N HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE)
5
AND:
1. SRI P R ANILKUMAR,
S/O P RAJA REDDY,
NO.52, KOTUR,
THIMMAKUPPAM POST,
BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT (A.P)
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.25, 1ST FLOOR,
SHANKAR NARAYAN BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AWARD AMOUNT UNDER THE ABOVE SAID
GROUNDS, BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
03.03.2011, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-9) AT BANGALORE IN MVC
NO.490/2010 BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
UNDER THE ABOVE SAID HEAD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
IN M.F.A.NO.8301 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED, NO.25, 1ST FLOOR,
SHANKARNARAYANA BUILDING,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SANDEEP KUMAR,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
6
KRISHI BHAVAN,
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 001
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT A DEVAKI
W/O LATE REDDAPPA REDDY,
36 YEARS,
2. SMT A KUPPAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNA MURTHY,
66 YEARS
3. KUMARI A BHAGYA SRI
D/O LATE REDDAPPA REDDY,
18 YEARS,
4. KUMARI A GAUTHAMI
D/O LATE REDDAPPA REDDY,
AGED 16 YEARS,
SINCE THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS MINOR
SHE IS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN i.e., THE FIRST PETITIONER
ALL ARE RESIDING OF KOLLAPALLI VILLAGE,
YARIAPALLI POST, GRELA MANDALAM,
CHITOOR DISTRICT.
5. SRI P R ANIL KUMAR
S/O P RAJA REDDY, NO.52, KOTUR,
THIMMAKUPPAM POST,
BANGARUPALYAM MANDAL,
CHITOOR DISTRICT, AP -517 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N.HARISH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4;
R5 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
7
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED
IN MVC NO.491/2010 DATED 03.03.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT; ALLOW
THE APPEAL WITH COSTS.
THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
30.06.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') are
arising out of common judgment and award dated 03.03.2011 in
MVC.490/2010 and 491/2010.
2. MFA.No.6788/2011 is filed by petitioners in
MVC.No.491/2010. MFA.No.6789/2011 is filed by petitioners in
MVC.No.490/2010.
3. MFA.No.8300/2011 and 8301/2011 are filed by
respondent No.2 - Insurance company against the judgment and
award in MVC.No.490/2010 and 491/2010 respectively.
4. Since these appeals are arising out of common
judgment and award, they are clubbed together and disposed of
by a common judgment.
5. Since in both these petitions the respondents are
common, for the sake of convenience they are referred to as
respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since in the accident in question, two
deaths have occurred giving rise to two separate claim petitions
claiming compensation by their respective legal representatives,
for the sake of convenience petitioners in MVC.No.490/2010 are
referred to as LRs of Krishnamurthy Reddy and petitioners in
MVC.No.491/21010 are referred to as LRs of Reddappa Reddy.
6. FACTS: Brief facts leading to the filing of claim
petitions are that on 02.08.2009 at about 8.15 p.m. deceased
Krishnamurthy Reddy was riding motor cycle bearing registration
No.AP-03-AA-7037. He was proceeding from Chittoor to
Chigurakolapalli. When he was infront of Anand Processing and
Food Juice factory, rider of motor cycle bearing registration
No.AP-03-P-2831 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle)
i.e, deceased Redappa Reddy, came form the opposite direction
in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner and dashed
against the motor cycle of deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy. As a
result of the accident, both Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa
Reddy sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
7. During the course of petition averments, LRs of
Redappa Reddy have pleaded that at the time of accident, both
Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa Reddy rode the offending
vehicle in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner and
dashed against the motor cycle of each other. As a result of the
accident, both riders died on the spot.
8. LRs of both deceased have pleaded that deceased
were earning Rs.40,000/- p.a. Under Section 163-A of the MV
Act, they are seeking compensation under no fault liability
against the respondents i.e., the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle.
9. In his written statement, respondent No.1 i.e., the
owner of the offending vehicle has admitted the ownership and
coverage of the offending vehicle, date, time, place of accident
and the death of both riders in the said accident. He has pleaded
that charge sheet is filed against the riders of the both motor
cycles and as the both riders died, the charge sheet is abated.
However, he has denied that the accident occurred due to the
rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending vehicle. In
MVC.No.491/2010, respondent No.1 has specifically pleaded that
petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act is not maintainable
against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle by the LRs
of deceased Redappa Reddy as he was not a third party. In the
event of allowing the petitions, respondent No.1 has pleaded
that respondent No.2 - Insurance company is liable to indemnify
him.
10. In the written statement, respondent No.2 has
denied the accident, relationship between the deceased and the
petitioners, death of deceased in the said accident. Though
respondent No.2 admit the coverage of the offending vehicle, it
has taken up a specific defence that deceased Redappa Reddy
who was riding the offending vehicle was not holding a valid
driving license and as such respondent No.2 is not liable to
indemnify the owner. Respondent No.2 has also pleaded that
petition in MVC.No.491/2010 is not maintainable for not
impleading the owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing
registration No.AP-03-AA-7037.
11. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed
necessary issues.
12. In MVC.No.491/2010, petitioner No.1 therein is
examined as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to 10 are marked. In
MVC.No.490/2010 petitioner No.1 therein is examined as PW-2
and Ex.P1 to 16 are marked.
13. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.2,
RW-1 is examined by way of common evidence and Ex.R1 - copy
of the insurance policy is marked.
14. Vide impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal
has answered all the issues in favour of petitioners and granted
global compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- each in both cases.
15. During the course of arguments learned counsel for
petitioners submitted that instead of granting compensation
under the structured formula, the Tribunal has erred in granting
global compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- and has sought for
enhancement of the same.
16. The learned counsel for petitioners have relied upon
the following decisions:
i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sunil
Kumar and another1 (Sunil's Case)
ii) Shivaji and another Vs. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others2
(Shivaji's Case)
iii) Smt. Jancy Vs. The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC Mangalore3 (Jancy's Case)
iv) Smt. Priya W/o. Late Shivakumar and others
Vs. Sri Armugam and another4 (Priya's Case)
v) National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Gousia and
others5 (Gousia's Case)
vi) Chandrakanta Tiwari Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited and another6 (Tiwari's Case)
AIR 2017 SC 5710
Civil Appeal No.2816 of 2018 disposed on 09.08.2018
ILR 2021 KAR 2347
MFA No.3889/2011 Disposed on 11.06.2019
2019 ACJ 1649
(2020) 7 SCC 386
vii) Ramkhiladi and another Vs. United India
Insurance Company and another7
(Ramkhiladi's Case)
viii) National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Smt. Anjali and
others8 (Anjali's Case)
ix) IFFCO-TOKIO GIC Ltd., Vs. Smt. Susheela &
others9 (Susheela's Case)
17. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.2 argued that when two vehicles are involved, in a petition
under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the owner and insurer of the
both vehicles are necessary parties, but in the present case, the
owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-
AA-7037, which was ridden by deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy,
is not arraigned as parties. Though in a petition under Section
163-A of the MV Act, the negligence on the part of the rider is
not required to be proved, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not
taken away by the said provision in quantifying the negligence
and involvement of the other vehicle. Therefore, in the absence
of the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration
(2020) 2 SCC 550
ILR 2011 KAR 5184
ILR 2021 KAR 447
No.AP-03-AA-7037, the Tribunal is not justified in directing
respondent No.2 to pay the compensation in both cases.
18. In support of the defence of respondent No.2, the
learned counsel has also relied upon Ramkhiladi's Case.
19. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the
parties.
20. Thus, LRs of both deceased viz., Krishnamurthy
Reddy and Redappa Reddy have maintained these two separate
claim petitions under Section 163-A of the MV Act, which is
otherwise called as no fault liability. Even though in
MVC.No.490/2010, the petitioners have pleaded that the
accident occurred only due to rash or negligent driving by the
rider of the offending vehicle, after conducting detailed
investigation, the jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet
against both deceased i.e., the rider of the offending vehicle as
well as the rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-
AA-7037 i.e., deceased Krishna Murthy Reddy and thereby it is
established that both riders/deceased were rash or negligent and
responsible for causing accident. However, the petitioners in
MVC No.491/2010, who are LRs of Redappa Reddy have pleaded
that both deceased i.e., Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa
Reddy were equally negligent in causing the accident.
21. It is pertinent to note that so far as the offending
vehicle is concerned, deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy and his LRs
are third parties. However, the deceased Redappa Reddy and his
LRs are not third party so far as the offending vehicle and
respondents are concerned. The LRs of Redappa Reddy have not
chosen to arraign the owner and insurer of the motor cycle
bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. Under no fault liability,
it was necessary on their part to implead the owner and insurer
of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037.
22. Thus, so far as petition in MVC.No.490/2010 is
concerned, deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy was a third party vis-
à-vis respondents and as such petition under Section 163-A of
the MV Act is maintainable. However, for reasons best known to
them, petitioners in MVC.No.491/2010 have not chosen to
arraigned the owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing
registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. Had they impleaded the owner
and insurer of the said vehicle, they would have been third
parties with respect to the said vehicle and in that event petition
under Section 163-A of the MV Act would have been perfectly
maintainable against them. It appears the motor cycle bearing
registration No.AP-03-AA-7037 was not covered by a valid
insurance and therefore the LRs of the Redappa Reddy i.e., the
petitioners in MVC.No.491/2010 have not chosen to arraigned
the owner and insurer of the said vehicle.
23. Now coming to the decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel representing the petitioners in MVC
No.491/2010.
i) In Sunil Kumar's case, it was held that in a
petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, it is
not open to the insurer to raise defence of
negligence on the part of the victim. However
from the said judgment one is not able to know
whether it was a claim by third party or not.
Therefore the same is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the case in MVC
No.491/2010 wherein petitioners are not third
party.
ii) So far as Shivaji's case is concerned, it was a
matter where the petition was filed by the legal
representatives of driver of the car against the
offending vehicle which is lorry and therefore, it
was held that a petition under section 163-A of
M.V.Act is maintainable and it was not open to
the owner and insurer of the lorry to plead
negligence on the part of the deceased who was
the driver of the car. This decision is not
applicable to MVC No.491/2010 wherein the
claim is against the owner and insurer of the
vehicle which the deceased was riding and as
such, he was not the third party.
iii) In Jancy's case, petitioners were legal
representatives of rider of the two wheeler and
the claim was against the offending vehicle
belonging to KSRTC and a such, it was a third
party claim. It is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of MVC No.491/2010.
iv) In Priya's case, claimants were the legal
representatives of rider of the motorcycle which
skid and suffered injuries and died. Since
deceased and his legal representatives are not
third parties, in view of Ramkiladi's case, this
decision cannot be applied to MVC
No.491/2010.
v) In Netravati's case deceased was rider of a
motorcycle and when suddenly a dog crossed a
road, he fell and sustained injuries and died.
His legal representatives claimed compensation
under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. In view of
Ramkiladi's case, this decision cannot be
applied to MVC No.491/2010.
vi) In Gousia's case deceased was borrower of the
vehicle. He lost control over the vehicle and hit
curb stone on the road side and died. Since he
is not a third party, in view of Ramkiladi's case,
this decision cannot be applied to MVC
No.491/2010.
vii) Rama Bommayya Naika's case deals
with converting an petition filed under Section
166 to 163 of M.V. Act. The same is not
applicable to MVC No.491/2010.
viii) Chandrakant Tivari's case deals with a
claim by the legal representatives of the pillion
rider of the offending vehicle who was
necessarily a third party and as such it was held
that petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is
maintainable. However, the deceased Reddappa
Reddy was rider of the offending vehicle and as
such not a third party. Therefore this decision is
not applicable to MVC No.491/2010.
24. At this stage, by way of alternative argument, the
learned counsel for petitioners in MVC No.491/2010 argued and
submitted that, even where the Court comes to the conclusion
that, petition under section 163-A of M.V. Act is not maintainable
against respondent No.2, since respondent No.2 Insurance
Company has collected additional premium covering the P/A risk
of the owner/driver to the limit of Rs.1,00,000/-, to that extent
of respondent No.2 may be directed to pay the compensation.
25. It is pertinent to note that the insurance policy with
respect of the offending vehicle is produced and marked as
Ex.R1. Since it is not legible, during the course of arguments,
the learned counsel for petitioners have produced a legible copy.
As per Ex.R1 in addition to covering the risk of third party
liability, respondent No.2 Insurance Company has collected
additional premium of Rs.50/- covering the personal accident of
owner/driver to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, if not as
third party liability, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is
liable to indemnify the owner i.e. respondent No.1 to the extent
of Rs.1,00,000/- under the terms of the contract. In fact, in
Ramkhiladi's case, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court
dismissed the petition filed under section 163-A, based on the
contract of insurance covering the personal accident claim, it
directed the insurance Company to pay compensation of sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- with interest under the terms of contract.
Similarly in the present case, respondent No.2 is required to pay
Rs.1,00,000/- with interest.
26. Respondent No.2 has taken up a specific contention
that at the time of accident, deceased Redappa Reddy who was
riding the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving
license and as such respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify
the owner. During her cross-examination PW-1, who is the wife
of Redappa Reddy has admitted that at the time of accident, her
husband Redappa Reddy was not holding a driving license to
drive the motor cycle. She has also admitted that her husband
should not have rode the motor cycle without driving license. In
the light of the admission given by PW-1 and in the absence of
any evidence placed on record to show that in fact Redappa
Reddy was possessing a driving license to drive the offending
vehicle and that the admission given by PW-1 is in the ignorance
of such document, respondent No.2 has proved that at the time
of accident, Redappa Reddy was not holding a valid driving
license and since respondent No.1 has entrusted his vehicle to
Redappa Reddy who was not possessing a valid driving license,
respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the petitioners in
MVC.No.490/2010, wherein the claim against respondent No.2
under Section 163-A of the MV Act is maintainable. However in
the light of the decisions in Anjali's case and Susheela's case
referred to supra, even in a petition under Section 163-A of the
MV Act, in case of violation of condition regarding the driving
license, Insurance company may be directed to indemnify the
owner and recover the same from him. So far as
MVC.No.490/2010 is concerned, it would be appropriate to direct
respondent No.2 to pay and recover the compensation.
27. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation which
the petitioners are entitled in MVC.No.490/2010. Petitioners
have pleaded that at the time of the accident deceased was aged
35 years. In the PM report also his age is noted as 35 years and
therefore, his age is required to be taken as 35 years. Petitioners
have pleaded that he was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum which
the maximum specified in Schedule-II of the M.V. Act. It comes
to Rs.3,333/- per month which is also below the minimum wages
for the year 2009 when the accident took place. Therefore, even
in the absence of evidence, the income of the deceased is
considered as Rs.40,000/- per annum. As per Schedule II of
M.V. Act, for the age group between 30 to 35 and income of
Rs.40,000/- per annum the compensation prescribed is
Rs.6,40,000/-. As per this schedule, 1/3rd of the income is
required to be deducted towards the personal and living
expenses of the deceased and remaining 2/3rd is to taken into
consideration for calculating the compensation to the legal
representatives i.e. Rs.6,40,000 x 2/3 = 4,26,666/-.
27.1. As per the Schedule petitioners are entitled for a
fix amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/-
towards loss of spousal consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss
of estate.
27.2. Thus, is all the petitioners are entitled to the
compensation for a sum of Rs.4,36,166/- and the same is
rounded off to Rs.4,37,000/-.
28. As discussed at para 24 and 25, the petition under
section 163-A of M.V. Act is not maintainable against the
respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, petitioners in MVC No.491/2010
are not entitled for any compensation under section 163-A of
M.V. Act. However, in the light of Ex.R1, as per the terms of the
contract of insurance between respondent No.1 and 2,
respondent No.2 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- covering
the personal accident claim of the owner/driver, as the deceased
stepped into the shoes of the owner in his capacity as the
borrower of the offending vehicle.
29. To this extent, the impugned orders are liable to be
modified and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) MFA No.6788/2011, 6789/2011, 8300/2011 and
8301/2011 are allowed in part.
ii) Petitioners in MVC No.490/2010 are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,37,000/- with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition
till realization.
iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the
compensation together with interest and recover
the same from respondent No.1.
iv) Petitioners in MVC No.491/2010 are entitled for
compensation in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with
interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition
till realization.
v) Respondent No.2 is directed to pay the
compensation together with interest.
vi) Registry is directed to transmit the amount in
deposit, if any, to the concerned Tribunal,
forthwith.
vii) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial Court
Records along with copy of this judgment to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR/Yan/PJ
