Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Mahanthappa S/O Veerappa ... on 10 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH 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.200226/2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Registered and Head office,
Middleton Street, Kolkata-700072, through
The Br. Manager National Insurance Company Limited,
Near Govindrao Petrol Bank and
Suraksha Hospital, Raichur
Now through its Authorised Signator,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Ist Floor, Bilgundi Complex,
Opp: Mini Vidhana Soudha, Main Road,
Kalaburagi.
... Appellant
(By Sri. Sharanabasappa.M.Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mahanthappa S/o Veerappa Gurgunti,
Age: 49 years, Occ: Business Owner of
The Sri.Sugureshwara Trading Company
APMC Yard at Lingasugur,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur, Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist: Raichur-584122.
2
2. Anusha D/o Mahanthappa Gurugunti,
Age: 22 years, Occ: Student,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur, Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist. Richur-584122.
3. Shivakumar S/o Mahanthappa Gurugunti,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur, Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist. Raichur-584122.
4. Sugappa S/o Veerappa,
Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Kasaba Lingasugur, Tq. Lingasugur,
Dist. Raichur-584122.
... Respondents
(By Sri.Sharanagouda.v.Patil, Advocate for R1 & R2;
By Sri.Sanganagouda.V.Biradar, Advocate for R3 & R4)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to modify the
order of the tribunal and call for the lower court records
and hear the parties and set aside the judgment dated
03.09.2019 and award dated 17.09.2019 in MVC
No.356/2018 in the Court of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Senior Civil Judge at Lingasugur).
This appeal coming on for admission this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:
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 insurance company has preferred this
appeal assailing the judgment dated 03.09.2019 and
award dated 17.09.2019 in MVC.No.356/2018 on the
file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Senior Civil
Judge) at Lingasugur (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal" for short) on the ground of quantum and
liability.
3. The claimants being the husband and
children of the deceased filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act"
for short), claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/-
on account of death of one Parwatamma, who
succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in a motor
vehicle accident, contending that on 10.08.2018 at
about 1.30 p.m. when she along with the rider was
proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-36/EM-3759 and when the motorcycle reached
Lingasugur, the rider of the motorcycle rode the same
in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the rider
lost control of the vehicle and the deceased fell from
the vehicle and succumbed to the injuries during
treatment at the hospital.
4. It is contended that the deceased was hale
and healthy and was working as an Assistant at
Sri Sugureshwar Trading Company, Lingasugur and
also assisting in Kirana shop of her husband at
Kasaba-Lingasugur and was earning a sum of
Rs.40,000/- per month from the business and she was
contributing to the family. The husband and children
of the deceased were depending upon the deceased.
5. In pursuance of the notice issued by the
Tribunal, the respondents appeared through their
counsel and filed their written statement.
6. Respondent No.2 denied that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the
rider of the motorcycle i.e., respondent No.1 and
contended that the vehicle is insured with respondent
No.3.
7. Respondent No.3/insurance Company
denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle i.e.,
respondent No.1 and contended that the
compensation claimed by the claimants is on the
higher side.
8. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal
framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the
accident was occurred due to rash and
negligent riding of motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-36/EM-3759 by it's rider
respondent No.1 on 10.08.2018 at about
1.30 p.m., on Kasaba-Lingasugur to
Lingasugur road, near APMC Lingasugur
while deceased was traveling on the motor
cycle as a pillion rider?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the
death of the deceased Parwatamma W/o
Mahanthappa caused the alleged accident?
3. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that
the respondent No.1 violated the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy?
4. Whether the respondent No.3 proves that
the respondent No.1 was not having valid
driving licence and accident occurred due
to pure negligence of him?
5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation claimed? If so, what
quantum?
6. What orders or award?
9. In order to substantiate their claim,
claimant No.1-husband of the deceased examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked 43 documents as
Exs.P-1 to P-43. On the other hand, no witness was
examined on behalf of the respondents, nor any
document was marked.
10. The Tribunal on considering the pleadings,
evidence and the material on record, partly allowed
the claim petition awarding compensation of
Rs.17,05,302/- and fastened the liability upon the
insurance company and directed the insurance
company to pay the compensation amount with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till the date of realization under the
following heads:
Towards loss of dependency Rs.13,44,000/-
Towards conventional heads Rs.70,000/-
Towards Medical bills Rs.1,91,302/-
Towards love and affection Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.17,05,302/-
11. Being aggrieved by the fastening of liability
and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
insurance company is in appeal.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
13. Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant would contend
that the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the
liability upon the insurance company without
considering the fact that the accident occurred due to
the negligence on the part of the rider of the
motorcycle and the said negligence cannot be
attributed to the insurance company to pay the
compensation. It is further contended that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the
higher side. On these grounds, sought to set aside the
judgment and award of the Tribunal.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2/claimants would contend that the
Tribunal has awarded fair, just and proper
compensation and the same does not call for any
interference by this Court and hence, sought to
dismiss the appeal of the insurance company.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record, the only
point that arises for consideration in this appeal is,
"Whether the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal requires any
interference?"
16. The date, time and occurrence of the
accident and due to which the deceased Parwatamma
succumbed to the injuries are not in dispute.
However, the insurance company contended that the
rider of the motorcycle on his own negligence fell on
the road and caused the accident. The Tribunal,
considering the documents at Exs.P-1 to P-10 which
are the FIR, complaint, requisition letter, seizer
panchanama, charge sheet, inquest panchanama, spot
panchanama, post-mortem report and IMV report has
held that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing
registration No.KA-36/EM-3759, who is the son of the
deceased and that no policy conditions have been
violated and thus, fastened the liability on the
insurance company. A perusal and re-appreciation of
Exs.P1 to P10, especially Ex.P5-charge sheet leveled
against the rider of the motorcycle would establish the
fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle and not
due to the fall from motorcycle as contended by the
insurance company. Thus, the contention of the
appellant-insurance company to absolve the liability is
not justifiable.
17. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal assessed the notional income
of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- per month as the
accident was of the year 2018 and as per the dictum
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarla
Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation
and another (2009 ACJ 1298) and National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi
[(2017) 16 SCC 680], the Tribunal has rightly
applied the multiplier of 14 considering the age of the
deceased and deducted 1/3rd and rightly awarded
compensation of Rs.13,44,000/- towards future
prospects and loss of dependency.
18. Looking into the claim petition, the
dependants of the deceased were three in number. In
view of the dictum of the Honble Apex Court in
Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2020 SC
3076 and in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and
others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, the
appellants would be entitled to Rs.40,000/- each i.e.
Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of spousal and parental
consortium, but the Tribunal, under the conventional
heads has awarded Rs.70,000/-. There being no cross
appeal filed by the claimants, the award of
compensation under the conventional heads at
Rs.70,000/- is just and proper.
19. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
for the total medical bills produced by the claimants is
just and proper and the same does not call for any
interference.
20. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection, which this
Court deems fit not to interfere with the same. The
Tribunal, considering that the children have lost their
mother and husband has lost his wife, has awarded
interest at 9% p.a., which this Court is of the opinion
that it does not call for interference in view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
21. As a result, the point framed for
consideration is answered in the negative. Thus, in
our considered opinion, the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not
call for any interference.
22. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The judgment dated 03.09.2019 and
awarded dated 17.09.2019 passed in
MVC.No.356/2018 by the Tribunal is
hereby confirmed.
(iii) The amount in deposit is directed to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for
disbursement.
(iv) Registry is directed to transmit the Trial
Court records forthwith.
(v) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
