Karnataka High Court
Kindari Kechappa vs Dodda Erappa S/O Kupendrappa on 23 February, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
M.F.A.No.1879/2012(MV)
C/W
M.F.A.No.8253/2011(MV)
In M.F.A.1879/2012
BETWEEN:
Ravikumar,
S/o Hutchappa,
Aged about 33 years,
Uppar by caste,
Owner of Tractor bearing
Reg.No.KA.36/T/4054,
Goveranahalli village,
Harapanahalli taluk,
Davangere district. ... APPELLANT
(By Sri Manjunatha Pattanashetty, Adv.)
AND:
1. Kindari Kechappa
S/o Kechappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Coolie,
R/o Harishchandra Nagar,
Harapanahalli taluk,
Davangere District.
2. Smt. Manjamma
W/o Kechappa,
Coolie,
R/o Harishchandra Nagar,
2
Harapanahalli taluk,
Davangere District.
3. Dodda Erappa
S/o Kupendrappa,
Aged about 45 years,
Driver of Tractor bearing
Reg.No.KA36/T/4054
and Trailer No.35/T/4324,
Alamarasikere village,
Harapanahalli taluk,
Davangere district.
4. K.B.Saraswathamma
W/o Late Basavarajappa,
Aged about 75 years,
Lingayath,
Owner of Trailer no.35/T/4324,
Sogi village,
Hoovinahadagali taluk,
Bellary district.
5. Amath Gowda
S/o Gynanagowda,
Aged about 45 years,
Previous owner of Tractor bearing
Reg.No.KA.36/T/4054,
R/o Mahapura village,
Sindhanur Taluk,
Raichur district.
(EXPARTE)
6. The Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Dwaraka,
IInd Floor, Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai.
7. The Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Divisional Office,
3
Yalamanchali Complex,
Ist floor, Station road,
Hospet. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri K.Najalingappa, Adv. for R1 & R2;
Sri K.Suresh, Adv. for R6;
Sri Anup Seetharama Rao, Adv. for R7;
R3 & R4 - Served;
Appeal against R5 - dismissed)
In M.F.A.8253/2011
BETWEEN:
1. Kindari Kechappa
S/o Kenchappa,
Aged about 46 years, Coolie.
2. Smt. Manjamma
W/o K.Kenchappa,
Coolie,
Both are R/o Harishchandra Nagar,
Harapanahalli,
Davangere District. ... APPELLANTS
(By Sri K.Nijalingappa, Adv.)
AND:
1. Dodda Erappa
S/o Kupendrappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Driver of Tractor bearing Reg. No.KA.36/T/4054 and
Trailer No.35/T/4324, Alamarasikere village,
Harapanahalli Taluk,
Davangere District.
2. Ravikumar
S/o Hutchappa,
Aged 34 years,
Uppar by caste,
Owner of tractor bearing Reg. No.KA.36/T/4054,
Goveranahalli Village,
4
Harapanahalli Taluk,
Davangere District.
3. K.B.Saraswathamma
W/o Late Basavarajappa,
Aged about 76 years,
Lingayath,
Owner of trailer No.KA.35/T/4324,
Sogi village,
Hoovinahadagali Taluk,
Bellary.
4. Amath Gowda
S/o Gyannagowda,
Aged about 46 years,
Previous owner of Tractor bearing
Reg. No.KA.36/T/4054,
R/o Mahaoura village,
Sindhanur taluk, Raichur District.
5. The Manger
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Dwaraka, 2nd floor,
Uttamar Gandhi Salai,
Chennai.
6. The Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Yalanchali Complex,
1st floor, Station road,
Hospet. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri S.S.Guttal, Adv. for R1 & R2;
Sri K.Suresh, Adv. for R5;
Sri Anup Seetharama Rao, Adv. for R6;
R3 & R4 - Served)
M.F.A.No.1879/2012 is filed under Section 173(1) of MV
Act against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2011
passed in MVC No.04/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, Harapanahalli, awarding a compensation of
5
Rs.3,80,000/- with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of
petition till deposit.
M.F.A.No.8253/2011 is filed under Section 173(1) of MV
Act against the judgment and award dated 31.05.2011
passed in MVC No.04/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil
Judge, MACT-IX, Harapanahalli, partly allowing the claim
petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
These appeals are coming on for Admission, this day,
the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are at the instance of the claimants and
the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No.KA-36-T-
4054 calling in question the correctness of the judgment and
award dated 31.05.2011 in M.V.C. No.4/2010 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge, Harapanahalli.
2. The claim petition was filed on the allegation that the
claimants are the parents of one Anjinappa (hereinafter
referred to as 'the deceased') and on 08.04.2009 at about
1.00 p.m. when Anjinappa was standing near the quarry
where the tractor bearing Registration No. KA-36-T-4054 and
the trailer bearing No.KA.35/T/4324 was being loaded, the
driver of the tractor trailer moved the said vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and
the wheels of the tractor ran over him resulting in his
instantaneous death.
3. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 who was
the driver of the offending vehicle entered appearance and
filed a written statement admitting that the deceased had
died due to the accident, but he asserted that the death was
on account of the negligence of the deceased himself.
4. The Insurance Company of the tractor and the trailer
separately filed their written statement denying the material
averments in the claim petition and asserting that the driver
of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective
driving license to drive the vehicle.
5. During trial, claimant no.1 examined himself as PW-1
and an eye-witness was examined as PW-2. Exs.P-1 to P-9
were marked. The officials of the Insurance Company which
had insured the tractor and the trailer were examined as
RWs-1 & 2. RW-2 was the official who belonged to the
Insurance Company which had insured the offending tractor.
Exs.R-1 to R-3 were marked.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for both sides and
perusing the records, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim
petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,80,000/-
with interest thereon and directed the driver of the tractor
and owner of the tractor to pay the compensation and the
claim petition as against the rest of the respondents including
the Insurance Company was dismissed.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants advanced
twofold contentions. Firstly, he contended that Ex.R-1
produced was the driving license of the driver of the offending
tractor trailer and it clearly showed that he held valid and
effective driving license to drive the light motor vehicle
(tractor). He, therefore, submitted that the accident having
been caused by the offending tractor dashing against the
deceased and running over him, the driver having been in
possession of valid and effective driving license, the learned
Tribunal was in error in absolving respondent No.5-Insurance
Company - Insurer of the tractor from the liability to pay the
compensation. He submitted that, therefore, the said
Insurance Company should be directed to pay the
compensation awarded. He nextly submitted that the learned
Tribunal has committed an error by taking lower notional
income of the deceased and applying wrong multiplier, and
therefore, the compensation is required to be re-computed
also including the loss of future prospects and the appeal is
required to be allowed.
8. Learned Counsel for the owner of the tractor while
supporting the contentions of the learned Counsel for the
claimants, submitted that his appeal is required to be allowed
and direction is required to be issued to the Insurance
Company-respondent No.5 to pay the award amount.
9. Learned Counsel Sri K.Suresh appearing for the
Insurance Company (respondent No.5) submitted that it is no
doubt true that as per Ex.R-1, the driver of the offending
tractor trailer was in possession of the light motor vehicle -
tractor driving license and since at the time of the accident,
the trailer was also attached to the tractor, the liability to pay
the compensation should be held equally against the two
insurance companies which had insured the tractor and the
trailer.
10. Learned Counsel Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao appearing for
the Insurance Company which had insured the trailer,
submitted that the evidence produced clearly shows that the
accident resulting in the death of the deceased had taken
place solely on account of the driver driving the tractor in
question in a rash and negligent manner and the tractor
dashing against the deceased and also the wheel of the
tractor running over the deceased. He, therefore, submitted
that the Insurance Company of the tractor alone is liable to
pay the compensation amount and the appeal as against
respondent No.6 - United India Insurance Company Limited,
is liable to be dismissed.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and I have carefully perused
the records.
12. The facts established before the learned Tribunal show
that PW-2 examined was the eye-witness to the incident. He
was the complainant under Ex.P-2. The contents of Ex.P-2 as
well as the evidence of PW-2 clearly show that at the time of
the accident, the deceased was standing near the quarry and
on account of respondent No.1 - the driver of the tractor
driving the tractor trailer in a rash and negligent manner, the
tractor dashed against the deceased and when he fell down
on account of the same, the wheel of the tractor ran over him
resulting in his instantaneous death. In the cross-examination
of PW-2, nothing has been elicited so as to disbelieve his
version. Ex.P-8 is the charge sheet filed, wherein PW-2 is
shown as CW-1. The charge sheet allegation also fully
support the contention of PW-2 regarding the accident. It is,
therefore, evident that the deceased had died on account of
the tractor hitting the deceased and immediately running
over him. Ex.R-1 also shows that the driver had proper and
valid driving license to drive the tractor at the time of the
accident. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the
accident resulting in the death of the deceased had taken
place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the
tractor in question by the driver. The tractor was insured with
respondent No.5 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
Therefore, the Insurance Company - respondent No.5 which
has issued the valid policy of insurance is liable to pay the
compensation awarded for the death of the deceased on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor
by its driver.
13. The next question that arises for consideration is,
whether the claimants are entitled to any enhanced
compensation.
14. The claimant was aged 20 years as per the finding of
the learned Tribunal at the time of his death. The appropriate
multiplier applicable to this case, therefore, is '18'. The
learned Tribunal has taken his notional income at Rs.4,000/-
per month. However, as per the chart prepared by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority which is generally
followed in the State, the notional income is Rs.5,000/- per
month for the year 2009. The deceased was a bachelor.
Therefore, 50% of his income is required to be deducted
towards his personal expenses by following the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered by a Constitution Bench
in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS PRANAY
SETHI & OTHERS - (2017)16 SCC 680. 40% of the
established income is required to be added towards loss of
future prospects in life. Accordingly, the loss of dependency is
required to be re-computed as follows, Rs.5,000/- + 40% -
50% x 12 x 18 = Rs.7,56,000/-.
15. The claimants are the parents of the deceased.
Therefore, for the loss of filial consortium, a sum of
Rs.80,000/- is required to be awarded and another sum of
Rs.30,000/- is required to awarded under the conventional
head. Thus, the total awardable compensation to the
claimants is Rs.8,66,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded
a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-. Therefore, the enhanced
compensation is Rs.4,86,000/-.
16. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
payment. The compensation and enhanced compensation
shall be payable by respondent No.5 - Oriental Insurance
Company Limited, within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Records to be
transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Both the appeals are
allowed to the extend as stated above.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
