Karnataka High Court

Nagaraju S S/O Sadappa vs M/S Munikantha Enterprises on 2 February, 2022

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

               MFA NO.9569/2010(MV)
                       C/W
               MFA NO.9788/2010(MV)
               MFA NO.9789/2010(MV)

MFA NO.9569/2010:

BETWEEN:

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
NO.14.158/1, PALACE EXTENSION,
KUPPAM
THROUGH ITS
BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX,
NO.44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
BANGALORE 25
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S V HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SMT KADIRAMMA
       W/O MUNIRAJU
       AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

2.     PRABHAKAR
       S/O MUNIRAJU
       AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

3.     PAVITHRA
       D/O MUNIRAJU
       AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
                            2




4.   CHAITHRA
     D/O MUNIRAJU
     AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

5.   THIMMAKKA
     W/O LATE MUNISWAMY
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

     RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4
     ARE MINORS AND ARE
     REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER
     AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
     THE RESPONDENT NO.1
     ALL ARE R/AT CHINNAKAMANAHALLI VILLAGE,

6.   M/S. MANIKANTA ENTERPRISES
     NO.71, JARAGANAHALLI,
     SHIVANANDA NAGAR
     KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
     BESIDE MUTHYA GANAPATHY TEMPLE
     BANGALORE
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.C.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.06.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.9/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT, K.G.F., AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF Rs.3,50,080/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.

MFA NO.9788/2010:

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT KADIRAMMA
     W/O LATE MUNIRAJU
     AGED 29 YEARS

2.   PRABHAKER
     S/O LATE MUNIRAJU
                             3




       AGED 11 YEARS,
3.     PAVITHRA
       D/O LATE MUNIRAJU
       AGED 09 YEARS

4.     CHITRA
       D/O LATE MUNIRAJU
       AGED 09 YEARS

5.     THIMMAKKA
       W/O LATE MUNISWAMY
       AGED 54 YEARS

       RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
       R/BY THIER MOTHER
       RESPONDENT NO.1,
       ALL ARE R/AT
       CHINNAKAMANAHALLI (V)
       THOPPALAHALLI (P)
       BANGARPET (T)
                                         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. C.M. VENKATA REDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M/S MUNIKANTHA ENTERPRISES
       NO.71, JARAGANAHALLI,
       SHIVANANDANAGAR,
       KANAKAPUR MAIN ROAD,
       BESIDE MUTHYA GANAPATHY TEMPLE,
       BANGALORE
       R/BY MANAGER

2.     THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
       NO.14, 158/1, PALACE EXTENSION
       KUPPAM - 517425
       R/BY ITS MANAGER
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN PONNAPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    V/O DATED 9.2.2012 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)
                            4




     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.06.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.09/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
FAST TRACK COURT, K.G.F., PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

MFA NO.9789/2010:

BETWEEN:

NAGARAJU S
S/O SADAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT CHINNAKAMANAHALLI (V)
THOPPALAHALLI (P)
BANGARPET (T)
                                           ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.M. VENKATA REDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M/S MUNIKANTHA ENTERPRISES
       NO.71, JARAGANAHALLI,
       SHIVANANDANAGAR,
       KANAKAPUR MAIN ROAD,
       BESIDE MUTHYA GANAPATHY TEMPLE,
       BANGALORE-570078
       R/BY MANAGER

2.     THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD
       NO.14, 158/1, PALACE EXTENSION
       KUPPAM - 517425
       R/BY ITS MANAGER
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    V/O DATED 12.9.13 NOTICE TO R1 D/W)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:4.6.2010 PASSED IN
MVC NO.10/2006 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST
                                  5




TRACK COURT, K.G.F, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT
OF COMPENSATION.

     THESE MFA's COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/ PHYSICAL HEARING,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

MFA Nos.9569/2010 and 9788/2010 are against the

common judgment and award passed in MVC No.9/2006 and

MFA No.9789/2010 is against common judgment and award in

MVC No.10/2006 both dated 04.06.2010 passed by learned

Fast Track Court, KGF.

2. The claim petitions were filed on the allegation that

one Muniraju (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") and

Nagaraju had proceeded as loaders in truck bearing

registration No.KA-05-C-5541 under respondent No.1-

M/s.Manikanta Enterprises (before the learned MACT) and

insured with appellant-insurance company.

3. It is stated that on account of rash and negligent

driving of driver of lorry on 14.11.2005 at about 2.00 p.m.

offending truck carrying marble stones capsized near Kuppam

and on account of same Muniraju died and claimant Nagaraju

suffered injuries.

4. Before learned MACT, the owner of offending

vehicle remained exparte. Insurance company contested the

proceedings by filing its detailed written statement.

5. During the trial, PW1 to PW3 were examined and

Exs.P-1 to P-12 were marked on behalf of claimants.

Respondents examined one of the officials of insurance

company as RW1 and policy of the insurance was marked as

Ex.R-1.

6. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides

and perusal of records, learned Tribunal allowed the claim

petitions in part awarding a compensation of Rs.3,50,080/-

for the death of deceased Muniraju and Rs.4,000/- for the

injuries suffered by Nagaraju with interest thereon @ 6% p.a.

from the date of petition till payment.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance

company submitted that offending truck was plying between

Kuppam and KGF namely, 2 towns situated in different states

and Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999

(Unamended) is very clear that compulsory statutory

coverage will not apply if the goods vehicle was plying inter-

State with the vehicle carrying goods from one city to another

city. He therefore submitted that liability to reimburse

compensation could not have been fastened on the insurance

company and therefore, direction to the extent that award

imposing liability on the insurance company is liable to be set

aside.

8. Learned counsel for the claimants has remained

absent.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-

insurance company and I have carefully perused the records.

10. There is no dispute about the fact that offending

truck was carrying goods between Kempapura near KGF,

Karnataka to Kuppam in Andhra Pradesh. As a matter of fact,

that is the specific case of claimants themselves. Rule 100 of

Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 reads as follows:

"100. Carriage of persons in goods vehicle.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this rule, no person shall be carried in a goods vehicle:

Provided that the owner or the hirer or a bona fide employee of the owner of the hirer of the vehicle carried free of charge or a police officer in uniform traveling on duty may be carried in a goods vehicles, the total number of persons so carried.-

(i) in light transport goods vehicle having registered laden weight less than 990 kgs. Not more than one;

(ii) in any other light transport goods vehicle not more than three; and

(iii) in any goods vehicle not more than seven:

Provided that the provisions of sub- clauses (ii) and (iii) of the above proviso shall not be applicable to the vehicles plying on inter-State routes or the vehicles carrying goods from one city to another city.

(2) ...........

(3) ...........

(4) ...........

(5) ...........

(6) ..........."

11. It is therefore clear that insurance company

cannot be held liable for reimbursing the compensation

awarded in these cases against the owner as the accident

resulting in the death and injury has taken place when the

offending vehicle was transporting goods between Kuppam in

Andhra Pradesh and Kempapura near KGF in Karnataka. In

that view of the matter, direction to the extent of fastening

the liability to pay compensation on the appellant - insurance

company is liable to be set aside.

12. MFA No.9788/2010 is filed by the claimants

seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded for the

death deceased Muniraju. The accident and resultant death

had taken place on 14.11.2005. Learned MACT has fixed

notional income of the deceased at Rs.2,400/- per month.

The notional income fixed by the MACT is palpably on the

lower side and it is required to be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per

month having regard to the fact that he was working as a

loader on an inter-State truck.

13. Ex.P-6 is P.M.Report, which shows that deceased

Muniraju was aged 30 years at the time of accident.

Therefore, relevant multiplier applicable is '17'. He has left

behind his wife, three children and a mother and as such,

1/4th is required to be deducted towards his personal

expenses. In view of the Constitution Bench decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY LTD. v. PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS reported

in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of established income of

deceased is required to be added towards 'loss of future

prospects'. Thus, 'loss of dependency' is required to be

recomputed as follows:

Rs.3,000/- + 40% (i.e., Rs.1,200) = Rs.4,200/-

Rs.4,200/- - 1/4 = Rs.3,150 x 12 x 17 = Rs.6,42,600/-

14. Towards spousal consortium, filial consortium and

parental consortium Rs.2,00,000/- (i.e., Rs.40,000/- x 5) is

required to be awarded. Another sum of Rs.30,000/- is

required to be awarded under conventional heads namely,

towards 'loss of estate and funeral expenses'. Thus, in all

claimant is entitled to:

SL.                PARTICULARS                  AMOUNT (RS.)
NO.
 1     Loss of dependency                          6,42,600-00
 2     Loss of love and affection                    5,000-00
 3     Loss of spousal, filial and parental        2,00,000-00
 4     Loss  of       estate    and   funeral       30,000-00
       expenses
                        Total                     8,77,600-00

15. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of

Rs.3,50,080/- in this case. Thus, enhanced compensation is

Rs.5,27,520/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry

interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

payment.

16. MFA.No.9789/2010 is against the award made by

learned MACT in MVC.No.10/2006. Learned MACT has

awarded a global compensation of Rs.4,000/- to claimant-

Nagaraju. Learned MACT has elaborately considered the

medical documents produced and has observed that claimant

has placed reliance on certain medical documents, which

related to old fractures and therefore, it has refused to place