Karnataka High Court
The Manager Reliance vs Shamalabai And Ors on 8 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MFA NO.200911/2019 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
3rd Floor, Asian Plaza,
Timmapuri Circle, Kalaburagi.
... Appellant
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Advocate)
AND:
1. Shamalabai W/o Late Gorakhnath,
Age: 51 years, Occ: Household,
2. Sangeeta W/o Late. Gorakhnath,
Age: 41 years, Occ: Household,
3. Bhagyashree D/o Late. Gorakhnath,
Age: 16 years, Occ: Student,
4. Shridevi D/o Late. Gorakhnath,
Age: 14 years, Occ: Student,
2
5. Malashree D/o Late. Gorakhnath,
Age: 13 years, Occ: Student,
6. Jyothi D/o Late. Gorakhnath,
Age: 10 years, Occ: Student,
(R-3 to R6 U/G mother R-2)
All R/o Mutgari Village, Tq: Humnabad,
Dist. Bidar-585401.
7. Santosh Giri S/o Chanappa Giri,
Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Tractor,
R/o Ladgeri, Bidar-585401.
8. Chanappa Giri S/o Hanumanthappa,
Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Tractor,
R/o Ladgeri, Bidar-585401.
... Respondents
(Sri. Babu H. Metagudda, Advocate for R1 to R6
(R3 to 6 are minors U/G of R2);
Sri. A.S. Rawoor, Advocate for R7;
R8 - served)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to allow the
appeal and consequently set aside the judgment and
award dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
& MACT, Humnabad, in MVC No.372/2016.
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
same is taken up for final disposal.
2. The present appeal is preferred by the
insurance company assailing the judgment and award
dated 31.01.2019 passed in MVC No.372/2016 by the
Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Humnabad (hereinafter
referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) on the ground
of liability and quantum.
3. The claimants being the wife and children
of deceased Gorakhnath, who died due to the fatal
road traffic accident that occurred on 17.04.2015,
filed a claim petition in MVC.No.372/2016 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act"
for short), claiming compensation. The accident took
place when the deceased was sitting on a chair and
the driver of the offending Tractor vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-38/T-2549 with trailer bearing
registration No.KA-38/T-2564 drove the same in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against
Gorakhnath, due to which he sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the same on spot. The
deceased was aged about 58 years and hale and
healthy at the time of accident and was working as a
Process Server and was also doing agricultural work
and earning around Rs.30,000/- per month. The
claimants were depending solely upon the income of
the deceased.
4. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before the
Court and hence, they were placed ex-parte.
5. Respondent No.3-insurance company
appeared through the counsel and filed the objections
contending that the accident took place due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor
and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay
the compensation amount. It is also contended that
the claimants have filed a false case and denied that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the tractor trailer. It is also
denied that on the date of the accident, the driver of
the tractor trailer was holding an effective and valid
driving licence and hence, sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the
deceased Gorakhnath S/o Nilkanthrao
died in the motor vehicle accident
occurred on 17.04.2015 at about 6.30
P.M. near Ladgeri main road Town
Bidar, due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Tractor and
Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-38/T-2549
with Trailor bearing Reg.No.KA-38/
T-2564 as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner further proves
that she is entitled for compensation?
If so what is the quantum and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate their case,
claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and two
other witnesses examined as PWs.2 and 3 and got
marked 13 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-13. On the
other hand respondent examined himself as RW.1 and
got marked 4 documents as per Exs.R-1 to R-4.
8. The Tribunal, on assessing the pleadings,
evidence and material on record held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the
part of the driver of the tractor bearing registration
No.KA-38/T-2549 with trailer bearing registration
No.KA-38/T-2564 due to which the said Gorakhnath
succumbed to the injuries and awarded compensation
of Rs.25,46,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization and fastened the liability on the insurance
company.
9. The insurance company has preferred this
appeal being aggrieved by the said award fastening
the liability on the insurance company and also on the
ground of quantum of compensation.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondent/claimants.
11. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for
the insurance company would contend that as per the
spot mahazar and sketch marked at Ex.P-4, there is
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
It is also contended that the Tribunal without
considering the contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased has fastened the liability upon the
insurance company. It is further contended that in
the complaint, there is no mention about the number
of the offending vehicle and thus, the offending
vehicle being implicated in the accident is just to get
compensation. Insofar as the quantum of
compensation is concerned, learned counsel would
contend that the Tribunal has awarded exorbitant sum
and which needs to be re-assessed by this Court.
12. Per contra, Sri Babu H. Metagudda, learned
counsel for the respondents/claimants would contend
that the Tribunal, after re-assessing the material on
record has held that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle and there is no negligence on the
part of the deceased. The Tribunal has also held that
due to the accident, the said Gorakhnath succumbed
to the injuries.
13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, it is contended that the Tribunal, while
re-assessing the income of the deceased, taking into
consideration the documents at Exs.P-9 to P-11-
salary certificate of the deceased has held that the
deceased was earning a sum of Rs.26,744/- per
month and has awarded compensation of
Rs.24,66,000/- towards loss of dependency,
Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral and transportation
expenses and loss of estate and Rs.50,000/- towards
loss of love and affection. Considering the dictum of
Hon'ble Apex Court, in the cases of Sarla Verma and
others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130, the Tribunal has rightly awarded
a sum of Rs.25,46,000/- with interest at the rate of
6% per annum.
14. Looking from all angle, the order of the
Tribunal does not call for any interference by this
Court. Thus, in our considered view, the appeal filed
by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated
31.01.2019 passed in MVC.No.372/2016 by
the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
iii) The amount in deposit before this Court is
directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal
for disbursement.
iv) Registry is directed to send back the Trial
Court records to the Tribunal forthwith.
v) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
