Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Thejavathi W/O Late Ravikumar on 3 February, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
M.F.A.No.6973/2011 (MV)
C/W
MFA NO.5194/2011(MV)
IN M.F.A.No.6973/2011
BETWEEN:
1. SMT TEJAVATHI
W/O LATE RAVIKUMAR,
AGED 30 YEARS,
2. RAKSHITH
S/O LATE RAVIKUMAR,
AGED 10 YEARS,
3. MOHITH
S/O LATE RAVIKUMAR
AGED 8 YEARS,
4. CHOWDAIAH
S/O GADDEGOWDA
AGED 72 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/O
BEHIND POST OFFICE,
SRIRANGAPATNA-571 423
...APPELLANTS
(By Sri. R PRAMOD, ADV.)
2
AND:
1. SRI RAGHUNATH SINGH RATHORE
S/O BHOIRON SINGH RATHORE,
MAJOR,
R/O 5665,
VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE,
MYSORE.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.4/12, NAVEEN COMPLEX,
HEBBAL MAIN ROAD,
METAGALLY,
MYSORE-571 405.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. A.M.VENKATESH, ADV., R2
R-1 NOTICE DISPENSED )
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2011 PASSED
IN M.V.C.NO.1383/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER
MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A.No.5194/2011
BETWEEN
THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NO. 4/12, NAVEEN COMPLEX,
I FLOOR, HEBBAL MAIN ROAD,
METAGALLY,
MYSORE - 570 001,
3
AND ALSO
HEAD OFFICE,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD,
LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX
BANGALORE- 560 025
BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(By Sri. A.M.VENKAESH, ADV.)
AND:
1. THEJAVATHI
W/O LATE RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
2 . RAKSHITH
S/O LATE RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
3 . MOHITH
S/O LATE RAVIKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
(APPELLANT NOS.1 AND 2 BEING MINORS
REP. BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
i.e., 1ST APPELLANT
SMT THEJAVATHI
AS GUARDIAN)
4 . CHOWDAIAH
S/O GADDEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT
BEHIND POST OFFICE,
SRIRANGAPATNA - 571 434
4
5 . RAGHUNATH SINGH RATHORE
S/O BHOIRON SINGH RATHORE
MAJOR,
R/AT NO 5665,
VIJAYA NAGAR II STAGE,
MYSORE -570 001.
.. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. R.PRAMOD, ADV. FOR R1 AND R4;
SRI. B.G. PRASAD, ADV. FOR R5;
R-2 & 3 MINORS REP. BY R-1)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.03.2011 PASSED
IN M.V.C.NO.1383/2009 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT,
SRIRANGAPATNA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
Rs.4,67,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE
OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of the claimants
and the Insurance Company calling in question the
correctness of the judgment and award dated 18.03.2011
in M.V.C.No.1383/2009 passed by Member, M.A.C.T.,
Srirangapatna.
2. It is stated in the claim petition that on
03.05.2009 at about 12:15 p.m., Ravikumar (hereinafter
referred to as the deceased) was riding a Hero Honda
Motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-09-EJ-1100, with
his sister Savitha (PW.2) as a pillion rider and near Bata
signal, the Goods Auto bearing registration
No.KA-09-A-3644, driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner came from behind and dashed to the
motor cycle, due to which the deceased and PW.2 fell
down and were dragged to some distance and
consequently, he succumbed to the injuries. Before the
learned Tribunal, both the respondents entered
appearance through their counsel and they filed their
separate written statement denying the material
averments made in the claim.
3. During the trial, claimant No.1 was examined
as PW.1 and two eye witness were examined as PWs.2
and 3. Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. Respondent No.1
before the Tribunal was examined as RW.1 and one official
of the Insurance Company was examined as RW.2. Exs.R1
to R8 were marked.
4. After hearing learned counsel on both sides
and appreciating the evidence, learned Tribunal allowed
the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of
Rs.4,67,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a., from the
date of the petition, till the date of payment.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in
support of its appeal fairly submitted that in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, it is no longer open to him
to question the validity and effectiveness of the driving
license of respondent No.1 - Raghunath Singh Rathore.
However, he submits that there is no merit in the appeal
filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the
compensation as after comprehensive examination of the
evidence, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and
reasonable compensation.
6. In support of the appeal of the claimants,
learned counsel contended that the learned Tribunal has
awarded a lower compensation on account of it fixing a
lower notional income for the deceased and similarly, it
has also awarded a lesser amount for the loss of
consortium and conventional head and therefore, the
compensation awarded is required to be enhanced by
allowing the appeal.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and I have carefully
perused the records.
8. Learned Tribunal has fastened the liability to
pay the compensation awarded by it on the Insurance
Company. Insurance Company has preferred this appeal
on the ground that even though the insured vehicle was a
light goods auto rickshaw, the driver of the said vehicle
was in possession of driving license without non-transport
endorsement. However, learned counsel does not dispute
the fact that the class of vehicle for which the driver of the
insured vehicle was having driving license, was the same
as that of the class of the offending vehicle. In that view
of the matter, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mukund Dewangan's case (Supra), the Insurance
Company cannot avoid the liability to pay the
compensation.
9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal
preferred by the Insurance Company and it is rejected.
10. There is no dispute about the fact that at the
time of the accident, deceased was aged 33 years.
Therefore, appropriate multiplier applicable is '16'. He has
left behind two children, a widow and one parent.
Therefore, under the head of spousal consortium, filial
consortium and parental consortium a sum of
Rs.1,60,000/- is required to be awarded and another sum
of Rs.30,000/- is required to be awarded under the
conventional heads. Since the deceased had died in the
year 2009, his notional income has been taken at
Rs.5,000/- as per the chart prepared by the Karnataka
Legal Services Authority. In view of the decision of the
Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay
Sethi, 40% of the established income is required to be
added towards loss of future prospects. Since he has left
behind four dependents, ¼th of his income has to be
deducted towards personal expenses.
Thus, the loss of dependency is recomputed as
follows: Rs.5000 + 40% - ¼ X 12 X 16 = 10,08,000/- +
Rs.1,90,000/- = Rs.11,98,000/-
11. Since the Tribunal has already awarded a sum
of Rs.4,67,000/-, the enhanced compensation is
Rs.7,31,000/-.
On the enhanced compensation, the
appellants/claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of
6% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of payment.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal by the Insurance Company
M.F.A.No.5194/2011 is dismissed and the appeal of
the claimants M.F.A.No.6973/2011 is allowed in part.
2. The enhanced compensation awarded with interest
thereon shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company within four weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment.
Registry is directed to transmit the records to the
Tribunal, forthwith.
Amount in deposit before this Court shall be
transmitted to the learned MACT.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
