Karnataka High Court
Hanmant S/O Siddappa Marapur vs Laxman S/O Satteppa Badennavar on 1 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.101229/2016(MV)
BETWEEN:
1. HANMANT,
S/O SIDDAPPA MARAPUR
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O: ITNAL, TQ: RAIBAG
NOW RESIDING AT RABKAVI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT
2. SMT. YANKAWWA
W/O HANAMANT MARAPUR
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O: ITNAL, NOW RESIDING AT RABKAVI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. LAXMAN S/O SATTEPPA BADENNAVAR
AGE: 26 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE, COOLIE WORK
R/O: RABKAVI, TQ: JAMKHANDI
DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GANAPATI KRUPA, 614/C/A, E-WARD,
151 LANE, SHAHAPURI KOLHAPUR
DIST: KOLHAPUR (MAHARASHTRA STATE)
2
3. DYANDEV R. MULIK
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT
4. GANGAPPA M. HEGGANNI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: KARWAD, GUNDANATTI,
TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S. S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 & R4 - SERVED;
R3 - SHARA INCOMPLETE ADDRESS)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.570/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SITTING AT JAMKHANDI AND
MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-XI, JAMKHANDI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The instant appeal is filed by the claimant
challenging the judgment and award dated
19.10.2015 passed by the I Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi and
Member, MACT-XI, Jamkhandi (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Tribunal', for brevity), in MVC No.570/2011,
insofar as it relates to the quantum as well as the
liability to pay the compensation.
2. Though the appeal is listed for admission,
with the consent of learned counsel appearing on
both sides, the same is taken up for final disposal.
Respondents No.1 and 4, though served in the
matter, have remained absent.
3. The parties to this appeal are referred to by
their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal
for the sake of convenience.
4. The brief facts of the case that would be
relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal
are;
The claimants, who are the parents of deceased
Birappa, had filed a claim petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of
`10,00,000/- with interest from the owner/RC holder
of the offending motor cycle bearing registration
No.KA-22/X-9780 and from its Insurer.
It is the case of the claimants that, on
19.08.2010, the claimants along with their son
Birappa, had gone to a hospital, wherein claimants'
sister Mallavva was admitted and when they were
returning to their village in a Honda Deluxe
Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-23/X-6354, the
offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-
22/X-9780, which was driven in a rash and negligent
manner by its rider, dashed against the motorcycle in
which Birappa was traveling and caused the accident.
In the said accident, Birappa sustained grievous
injuries and he was shifted to a Government Hospital,
Rabkavi. However, Birappa succumbed to the injuries
sustained by him in the accident. It is under these
circumstances, the claim petition was filed by the
claimants, seeking compensation with regard to the
death of their son Birappa in the road traffic accident
that had taken place on 19.08.2010.
The Tribunal had partly allowed the said claim
petition and awarded a compensation of `3,74,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
realization and had saddled the liability to pay the
compensation on respondents 1 and 4, who were the
owner and RC holder of the offending motorcycle
respectively. The Insurer of the offending motorcycle
was exonerated of its liability on the ground that,
though there was a valid policy in force as on the
date of the accident, the same was not transferred in
the name of the 4 t h respondent, who was holding the
registration certificate of the offending motorcycle as
on the date of accident. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the
claimants are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits
that it is not in dispute that there was a valid
insurance policy issued by the 2 n d respondent-insurer
which was in force as on the date of the accident in
question. Merely for the reason that the insurance
policy was not transferred in the name of the person
in whose name the registration certificate of the
offending motorcycle stood as on the date of the
accident, the Tribunal could not have exonerated the
insurer of the offending vehicle from paying the
compensation. He submits that the compensation
amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of
dependency and also under the conventional heads is
on the lower side and prays to enhance the
compensation amount and saddle the liability on the
insurer of the offending vehicle.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
the insurer submits that since the insurance policy
was not transferred in the name of the person who
held the registration certificate as on the date of the
accident, the Tribunal was justified in exonerating
the insurer. He submits that the rider of the
motorcycle did not have a valid driving licence to
drive the offending motorcycle as on the date of
accident and therefore the insurer cannot be held
liable to pay the compensation amount. He submits
that the insurer is required to be given liberty to pay
and recover the compensation amount. He further
submits that the compensation amount awarded by
the Tribunal is just and proper and needs no
interference and accordingly he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
7. I have carefully appreciated the contentions
urged on both sides and also perused the material
available on record.
8. The claimants are the parents of deceased
Birappa who admittedly had sustained injuries in the
accident that had taken place on 19.08.2010 wherein
the offending motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-22/X-9780 was involved. It is not in dispute
that the 2 n d respondent-insurer had issued insurance
policy in respect of the offending vehicle which was
in force as on the date of accident. The insurance
policy issued by the 2 n d respondent stood in the name
of the 3 r d respondent who was the earlier registered
owner of the offending motorcycle. Subsequently, the
motorcycle was sold to the 4 t h respondent who in turn
had sold the same to the 1 s t respondent, but the
registration certificate was not transferred in the
name of the 1 s t respondent and as on the date of
accident and the registration certificate stood in the
name of the 4th respondent. However, the fact
remains that the insurance policy issued in respect of
the offending motorcycle was valid as on the date of
the accident in which the offending motorcycle was
involved. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in
exonerating the liability of the insurer to indemnify
the owner of the motorcycle. It is settled position of
law that even though the insurance policy is not
transferred in the name of the subsequent purchaser
of the motorcycle if the said policy is valid as on the
date of the road traffic accident then the insurer is
liable to indemnify the registered owner of the
motorcycle. Therefore, I hold that the Tribunal was
not justified in exonerating the insurer of the
offending motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-22/X-9780 from paying the compensation to
the claimants.
9. Learned counsel for the insurer has
contended that the rider-cum-owner of the offending
motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence as
on the date of accident and therefore the liability to
pay the compensation amount cannot be saddled on
the insurer. The material on record would go to show
that the charge sheet has been filed in the present
case as against the 1 s t respondent who is the rider-
cum-owner of the offending motorcycle. A perusal of
the said charge sheet would go to show that Section
3 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been invoked in the
charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, it is
very clear that the 1st respondent had failed to
produce any valid driving licence before the police
during the course of their investigation. The 1st
respondent was served in the matter before the
Tribunal and he was represented by an advocate.
Even before the Tribunal, he has not produced the
copy of the licence. Under the circumstances, the
learned counsel for the insurer is justified in
submitting that the 1st respondent had used the
offending motorcycle in violation of the terms and
conditions of the policy and therefore the 2nd
respondent-insurer is required to be given liberty to
pay and recover the compensation amount from the
owner/registered owner of the offending motorcycle.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the deceased
Birappa was aged about 18 years and it was
contended that he had an income of `5,000/- per
month at the time of accident. Having regard to the
age of the deceased, 40% of his income is required
to be taken into consideration towards loss of his
future prospects and ½ of the total income is
required to be deducted towards his personal
expenses. The proper multiplier applicable in the case
on hand would be '18'. In the said event, the
claimants would be entitled for a total compensation
of `7,56,000/- towards loss of dependency. In
addition to the same, the claimants would be entitled
for a sum of `40,000/- each towards loss of filial love
and affection and another sum of `30,000/- towards
loss of estate and funeral expenses. Therefore in all,
the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of
`8,66,000/- as against sum of `3,74,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The Miscellaneous First Appeal is
allowed in part.
The claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of `8,66,000/- as against the
amount of `3,74,000/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The enhanced compensation
amount shall carry interest at 6% per
annum from the date of petition till
realization.
The insurer of the offending motorcycle
who is held liable to indemnify the
owner/registered owner of the motorcycle is
directed to deposit the entire amount of
compensation with interest before the
Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
The insurer of the offending motorcycle
is at liberty to pay and recover the
compensation amount from the
owner/registered owner of the offending
motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/
X-9780.
The order passed by the Tribunal
insofar as it relates to apportionment,
reimbursement and deposit etc., remains
unaltered and shall be applicable even to
the enhanced amount of compensation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab/CLK
