P Babusab S/O Late Honnur Sab vs Ronada Lalithamma W/O T Sharana ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2054 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 9 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                           BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

                  M.F.A. No.102556/2014
                           C/W
                M.F.A.No.102332/2014 (MV)

IN M.F.A. No.102556/2014

BET WEEN

THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INS URANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
RAMAKRISHNA COMPLEX ,
FIRST FLOOR, RAGHAVACHARI ROAD,
BALLARI, REPRESE NTED T HROU GH IT S
DIV IS IONAL MANAGER.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 .    SRI P.B AB U SAB S/O LATE HONNUR SAB ,
       AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,

2 .    P PEERASAB S/O P .B ABU SAB,
       AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT ,

       B OTH ARE R/O: MORIGER I V ILLAGE,
       H.B . HALLI TALU K, DIST: B ALLARI,
       NOW R/AT : GUGGARAHATTI IN B ALLARI.

3 .    SMT.RONADA LALITAMMA,
       W/O SHARANA B ASAPPA,
       AGE: 76 YEARS,
       R/O: MORIGER I VILLAGE,
       H.B . HALLI TALU K, DIST: B ALLARI,
                             2




4 .   U THANGI MALLAPPA,
      S/O VEERAB HADRAPPA,
      AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
      R/O: MORIGER I VILLAGE,
      H.B . HALLI-TALUK,
      DIST: B ALLARI.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. T .HANUMAREDDY , ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 SERVED)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DAT ED 17.06.2014, PASSED IN
MVC No.348/ 2013 ON THE F ILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS    TRIB UNAL-X II AT B ALLARI,   AWARDING     THE
COMPENSATION OF `5,03,000/- WITH INTEREST A T THE RA TE
OF 7% P.A. FROM THE DA TE OF PETI TION TILL THE DA TE OF
DEPO SIT.

IN M.F.A.No.102332/2014

BET WEEN

P B ABU SAB ,
S/O LATE HONNUR SAB,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: MORIGER I VILLAGE,
TQ: H.B .HALLI, DIST: BALLARI.
                                              ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. T .HANUMAREDDY , ADVOCATE)

AND

1 .   SMT. RONADA LALITHAMMA,
      W/O T. SHARANA BASAPPA,
      AGE: 76 YEARS,
      OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR-TRAILER
      B EARING REG.No.KA-35/T-6560- 6551,
      R/O: MORIGER I VILLAGE,
      TQ: H.B .HALLI, DIST: B ALLARI.

2.    THE DIV IS IONAL MANAGER,
      M/S UNITED IND IA INSU RANCE
      COMPANY LIMITED, BALLARI.
                             3




3.   U THANGI MALLAPPA,
     S/O VEERAB HADRAPPA
     AGE: 43 YEARS,
     OCC: DRIVER OF THE T RACTOR-T RAILER
     B EARING NO.KA-35/T-656 0-6561
     R/O: MORIGER I VILLAGE,
     H.B . HALLI-TALUK,
     DIST: B ALLARI.

4.   P.PEERASAB ,
     S/O P.B ABU SAB ,
     AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
     R/O MORIGER I VILLAGE,
     TQ: H.B .HALLI,
     DIST: B ALLARI.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N.R.KUPPELUR, ADVOCAE FOR R2;
 NOTICE TO R1, R3 AND R4 DISP ENSED WITH)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DAT ED 17.06.2014, PASSED IN
MVC No.348/ 2013 ON THE F ILE OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIB UNAL-X II AT B ALLAR I, PARTLY ALL OWING THE
CLAIM   PET IT ION FOR   COMPENSAT ION     AND   S EEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THESE A PPEA LS COMING ON FOR ADMISS ION, T HIS
DAY THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLLOW ING:

                       JUDGMENT

These two appeals filed by the insurer of the

offending vehicle and the claimant arise out of the

judgment and award dated 17.06.2014 passed by the

Motor Accid ent Claims Tribunal-XII, Ballari (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity) in MVC

No.348/2013 and therefore both the appeals are

taken up together and disposed off under a common

judgment.

2. Though these appeals are listed for

admission, with the consent of the learned counsels

appearing for the parties, the same are taken up for

final disposal. The parties to these appeals are

referred to by their rankings assigned to them before

the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be

relevant for the purpose of disposal of these appeals

are:

The deceased Smt.Hussain Bee was walking on

the roadside on 17.01.2013 and when she reached

near the land of one Mallikarjun on Morigeri-Ittagi

road, the offending tractor trailer bearing registration

No.KA-35/T-6560-6551 which was driven in a rash

and negligent manner by its driver dashed against

the deceased from her hind side and caused the

accident. The deceased who sustained grievous

injuries in the said accident was immediately shifted

to the hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries on

the way to the hospital. It is under these

circumstances, the claimants who are the husband

and son of the deceased had filed a claim petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for short, the 'Act') as against the driver, owner and

insurer of the offending tractor. The Tribunal had

partly allowed the claim petition and awarded

compensation of `5,03,000/- with interest at 7% per

annum from the date of petition till realization. Being

not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the

claimants have preferred MFA No.102332/2014, while

challenging the liability, the insurer of the offending

vehicle has filed MFA No.102556/2014.

4. Learned counsel for the insurer submits

that the driver of the offending tractor did not hold

valid and effective driving licence as on the date of

accident to drive a tractor trailer and therefore the

Tribunal was not justified in saddling the liability on

the insurer of the offending vehicle to pay the

compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the claimants submits that the driver of the offending

vehicle possessed a Light Motor Vehicle tractor only

driving licence and therefore having regard to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance

Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663,

the Tribunal was justified in saddling the liability to

pay compensation on the insurer of the offending

vehicle. Learned counsel for the claimants submits

that the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is on the lower side and accordingly prays to

enhance the same.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments

addressed on both sides and also perused the

material available on record.

7. The undisputed facts of the case are that

on 17.01.2013 in the road traffic accident that had

taken place on Morigeri-Ittagi road, deceased

Smt.Hussain Bee who had suffered grievous injuries

had succumbed to the same. The involvement of the

offending tractor trailer bearing registration

No.KA-35/T-6560-6551 in the said accident is not in

dispute, so also the fact that the said vehicle was

duly insured by the 3 r d respondent-insurer which was

valid as on the date of accident. Learned counsel for

the insurer has challenged the impugned judgment

and award insofar as it relates to saddling the

liability on the insurer to pay the compensation, on

the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle

did not possess valid and effective licence to drive

the tractor trailer as on the date of accident.

However he does not dispute the fact that the said

driver possessed a Light Motor Vehicle tractor only

licence as on the date of accident. Therefore, having

regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Mukund Dewangan, considering the fact

that the driver possessed a licence to drive a similar

class of vehicle, the Tribunal was fully justified in

saddling the liability to pay the compensation on the

insurer of the offending vehicle.

8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the material

on record would go to show that in the postmortem

report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as

45-50 years. However if the age mentioned in the

election identity card-Ex.P9 is taken into

consideration, as on the date of accident, the

deceased would have been 40 years. Though the

Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased at 40

years as on the date of accident, having regard to

the discrepancy in the age, I am of the view that the

same is required to be taken at 45 as on the date of

accident. The accident is of the year 2013 and

therefore in view of the income chart determined by

the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the

purpose of disposal of motor accident claims cases

before the Lok Adalath, the notional income of the

deceased was required to be taken at `7,000/- per

month and out of the same, 25% is required to be

taken into consideration towards loss of her future

prospects and 1/3 r d of the total income is required to

be deducted towards personal expenses of the

deceased. Having regard to the age of the deceased,

the proper multiplier applicable would be '14'. In the

said event, the claimants would be entitled for a total

compensation of `9,80,000/- towards loss of

dependency. Towards loss of consortium and loss of

filial love and affection, the claimants are entitled for

a sum of `40,000/- each and in addition to the same,

they are together entitled for a sum of `30,000/-

towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In all,

the claimants are entitled for a compensation of

`10,90,000/- as against `5,03,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall

also carry interest at 6% per annum.

9. Since the insurer of the offending vehicle is

held liable to pay the compensation amount, the 3 r d

respondent-insurer is directed to deposit the balance

amount of compensation with interest before the

Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this order.

10. The amount in deposit in MFA

No.102556/2014 is directed to be transferred to the

Tribunal for the purpose of disbursement.

11. The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as

it relates to apportionment, disbursement and deposit

etc., remains unaltered and the same would be

applicable even for the enhanced amount of

compensation. The appeal filed by the insurer is

accordingly dismissed and the appeal filed by the

claimants is partly allowed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK