Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager, United vs Geeta @ Geeta Bai And Ors on 22 February, 2022
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar, K S Hemalekha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND 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.200094/2018 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Divisional Office, Dr.Jawali Complex,
Super Market, Gulbarga.
... Appellant
(By Sri S.S. Aspalli, Advocate)
AND:
1. Geeta @ Geeta Bai W/o
Late Manohar Singh Rajput,
Age: 28 years, Occ: Household,
2. Payal @ Rani D/o
Late Manohar Singh Rajpur,
Age: 6 years, Occ: Nil (Minor) U/g
Of respondent No.1 Smt. Geeta @ Geetabai.
3. Laxmibai W/o Jaisingh Rajput,
Age: 67 years, Occ: Household work,
2
4. Jaisingh S/o Bhikkusingh Rajput,
Age: 72 years, Occ: Nil,
All R/o village Kodambal Tq.
Humnabad, Now residing at
Rahemat Nagar, Old Jewargi Road,
Gulbarga-585102.
5. Mallikarjun S/o Revansidappa,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
Owner of Goods Auto bearing
No.KA-39/8770 R/o of village Kodambal,
Tq. Humnabad, Dist. Bidar-585401.
... Respondents
(Sri. Mahadev S. Patil, Advocate for R1, R3 & R4;
R2 is minor R/by R1; R5 - served)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the
records in MVC No.257/2015 on the file of the III Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi dated 27.09.2017
and set aside the judgment and award dated 27.09.2017
in MVC No.257/2015 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil
Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi by allowing the above appeal.
This appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J., delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is preferred by the insurance
company assailing the judgment and award dated
27.09.2017 passed in MVC No.257/2015 by the
III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) on
the ground of liability and quantum.
2. The claimants being the wife, daughter and
parents of deceased Monohar Singh, who died in a
fatal road traffic accident that occurred on
08.09.2014, filed a claim petition in MVC.No.257/2015
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
("the Act" for short), claiming compensation. The
accident took place when the deceased was
proceeding on the motorcycle bearing Reg.
No.KA-32/R-1387 with one Gundappa from Ainapur to
Kodambal village and when he was near the land of
one Rajappa Bhalke, at that time the driver of the
goods auto bearing Reg.No.KA-39/8770 came from
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the motorcycle, due to which the
deceased succumbed to the injuries while in
treatment. The deceased was hale and healthy and
was working as a sand blaster painter and metal
structure install and earning Rs.25,000/- per month
and the claimants were solely depending upon the
income of the deceased.
3. On issuance of notice by the Tribunal,
respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their
written statements.
4. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle
denied the accident and contended that the accident
did not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of Goods Auto bearing No.KA-39/8770
and also contended that the vehicle was duly insured
with respondent No.2.
5. Respondent No.2-insurance company
denied the accident and contended that there was no
rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of
the goods auto and also that the driver was not
holding valid and effective driving licence as on the
date of the accident and sought to absolve the
liability.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Tribunal framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on
08.09.2014 at about 7-15 P.M. near to
the filed of one Rajappa Bhalke, on
Ainapur-Kodambal road he met with
accident and sustained grievous injuries
due and died due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of Goods Auto bearing
No.KA-39/8770?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that,
they are entitle for compensation? If
so, how much and from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate their case,
claimant No.1, the wife of deceased Manohar Singh
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 17
documents as Exs.P-1 to P-17. On the other hand,
respondents did not examine any witness, but got
marked insurance policy as Ex.R1.
8. The Tribunal, on the basis of 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 Goods Auto bearing Reg.
No.KA-39/8770, due to which the said Manohar Singh
succumbed to the injuries and awarded compensation
of Rs.16,92,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition till realization
and fastened the liability on the insurance company.
9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment
fastening the liability on the insurance company and
also on the ground of quantum of compensation, the
insurance company has preferred this appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant-insurance company and learned counsel for
the respondents/claimants.
11. Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel for the
appellant-insurance company would contend that
there is contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased and 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 the deceased
was not holding valid and effective driving licence as
on the date of the accident. It is further contended
that the owner of the goods auto has violated the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy and thus,
sought to absolve the liability.
12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, learned counsel would contend that the
Tribunal has awarded exorbitant sum, which needs to
be re-assessed by this Court.
13. Per contra, Sri. Mahadev S. Patil, 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 Manohar Singh
succumbed to the injuries.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the record the only point
that arises for consideration.
Whether the judgment and award of the
tribunal warrants any interference?
15. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of
PW.1 and the documents produced at Ex.P1 to Ex.P5
has held that the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Goods Auto
bearing Reg.No.KA-39/8770. Ex.P3-charge sheet
clearly discloses that the charge sheet is leveled
against the driver of the goods auto. Considering the
oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has
rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance
company. Re-appreciating and reassessing the
evidence and material on record clearly establishes
the fact that goods auto was involved in the accident,
the driver of goods auto was charge sheeted, Ex.P5
clearly depicts that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of driver of the goods auto.
Thus fastening liability on insurance company by the
tribunal is just and proper.
16. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, while assessing the income of the
deceased, the Tribunal has considered the documents
produced at Exs.P-6 to P-17 - Service certificates,
Bank receipts and Bank account extract respectively
to show the fact that the deceased was working as
sand blaster painter in United Arab Emirate and a
skilled person. The Tribunal taking into consideration
the material on record has taken the income of the
deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month and considering the
age of the deceased as 30 years has adopted the
multiplier of 17 and deducting 1/4th towards the
personal expenses of the deceased, as the dependents
of the deceased were four in number has awarded a
compensation Rs.13,77,000/- under the head 'loss of
dependency'. Considering the dictum of the 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 compensation of Rs.16,92,000/- with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum, which according to us is just,
fair and proper compensation.
17. Looking from all angles, the judgment and
award 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 and point framed for considered
is answered against insurance company.
18. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The judgment and award dated 27.09.2017
passed in MVC.No.257/2015 by the
Tribunal is hereby confirmed.
iii) The balance compensation amount
awarded by the Tribunal together with up
to date interest is directed to be deposited
before the Tribunal by the appellant within
a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
iv) The amount in deposit by the appellant in
the present appeal is directed to be
transmitted to the Tribunal for
disbursement.
v) Registry to send back the Trial Court
records forthwith.
vi) It is made clear that dismissal of this
appeal will not entitle the
respondent/claimants to seek revival of
MFA CROB No.200038/2018 which was
dismissed for non-prosecution on
01.10.2018.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMP/LG
