Smt. Savitri W/O. Maruti Jalagar @ ... vs Irappa S/O. Ningappa Lakur
2022 Latest Caselaw 411 Kant

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                 DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022

                      PRESENT

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                        AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

              MFA No.100824/2017 (MV)

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. SAVITRI W/O. MARUTI
     JALAGAR @ AMBIGER,
     AGED ABOUT: 28 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

2.   AKASH S/O. MARUTI
     JALAGAR @ AMBIGER,
     AGED ABOUT: 08 YEARS,
     OCC: STUDENT,

3.   HARISH S/O. MARUTI
     JALAGAR @ AMBIGER,
     AGED ABOUT: 06 YEARS,
     OCC: STUDENT,

4.   CHIRANHIVI S/O. MARUTI
     JALAGAR @ AMBIGER
     AGED ABOUT: 08 YEARS,
     OCC: STUDENT,

     APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS
     REPRESENTED BY UNDER THE
     GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR
     NATURAL MOTHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1
     SMT.SAVITRI W/O MARUTI
                            2



      JALAGAR @ AMBIGER

5.    HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTHAPPA
      S/O. BAILAPPA JALAGAR
      @ AMBIGER,
      AGED ABOUT: 58 YEARS,
      OCC: MASON,

6.    NAGAMMA @ NAGAVVA
      W/O. HANAMAPPA
      @ HANAMANTHAPPA
      JALAGAR @ AMBIGER,
      AGED ABOUT : 50 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

      ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
      GULEDGUDDA, TQ: BADAMI,
      DIST: BAGALKOT.
                                           ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.ANAND R KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    IRAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA LAKUR,
      AGED ABOUT: 41 YEARS,
      OCC: TRASPORT BUSINESS
      AND OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
      NO CRX-7959,
      R/O HUNDEKAR GALLI
      TQ AND DIST:BAGALKOT.

2.    THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
      ORINETAL INSURANCE COMPANY
      LIMITED, MADIVAL ARCHADE ,
      CLUB ROAD BELGAUM
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.S.ARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
 NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.12.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.1/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
                               3



JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-
VIII, BADAMI, DISMISSING THE PETITION VILED U/S 163(A) OF
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          JUDGMENT

Judgment and award dismissing claim petition filed

under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act is

unacceptable to the dependants of late Maruti Jalagar @

Ambiger. Hence, the present appeal is filed under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment

and award dated 01.12.2016 passed in MVC No.1/2014 on

the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VIII,

Badami (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. Parties are referred as per their designation

before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioners claim that the deceased Maruti,

on 13.06.2013, was riding the motorbike bearing

Reg.No.KA-29/W-4018 as a pillion rider. According to the

petitioners PW.2 Abdulvahib was riding the bike. The

accident according the petitioners, occurred as the lorry

bearing Reg.No.CRX-7959 dashed against the

aforementioned motorbike and Maruti, the pillion rider has

sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Katti

Hospital, Bagalkot and later succumbed to injuries on

05.07.2013. It is claimed that the deceased was aged 30

years and was working as tiles fitter with annual income of

Rs.39,500/-. According to the claimants, claimant No.1 is

the wife, claimants No.2 to 4 are the children and

claimants No.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased.

4. The claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of

the Motor Vehicles Act was resisted by the first

respondent-owner of the truck and the second respondent-

insurer. Both the respondents contended that the accident

occurred solely on account of rash and negligent act of the

deceased Maruti. It is further contended that the charge

sheet is filed against the deceased Maruti. The insurer

contended that driver of the lorry was not possessing valid

and effective driving licence. The Tribunal has dismissed

the petition on the ground that the deceased himself is

solely responsible for the accident. Aggrieved by the said

judgment and award, the claimants are before this Court.

5. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has

come to the conclusion that the lorry driver as well as the

deceased were negligent, however dismissed the petition

on the premise that petition under Section 163(A) of the

Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable as the deceased

himself was the owner of the vehicle involved in the

accident.

6. It is also forthcoming from the impugned

judgment that the driver of the lorry has pleaded guilty for

an offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code,

relating to the very same accident. Though the Tribunal

has observed that the driver of the lorry has pleaded guilty

and contributed to the accident, failed to award

compensation to the claimants.

7. The Tribunal has failed to take note of the fact

that under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is

not necessary to establish negligence in respect of a claim

arising out of death or permanent disability caused due to

the accident. Sub-section (2) of Section 163(A) of the

Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:

"In any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person."

This being the position of law, given the fact that the

motor vehicle accident has occurred and resulted into

death of Maruti, and given the fact that the petition is filed

under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act the

Tribunal could not have dismissed the petition.

8. It is also pertinent to note that according to

the claimants the annual income of the deceased Maruti

was Rs.39,500/- per annum i.e. within the limit prescribed

under the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988. The deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of

the accident as could be seen from Ex.P.5-postmortem

report. Thus, the compensation needs to be calculated as

per the structured formula provided in the second schedule

to the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the deceased was aged

30, 17 multiplier is to be applied and 1/3rd of his total

income is to be deducted which the deceased would have

used for himself. Remaining 2/3rd would be the income

available for the dependants. Thus, the compensation

payable would be as under:

Rs.39,500.00 (annual income) x 17 (multiplier) = Rs.6,71,500.00 - Rs.2,23,833.00 (1/3rd of the income) = Rs.4,47,667.00

In addition to the above said sum, the claimants are

also entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses,

Rs.5,000/- towards consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards

loss of estate. Thus, the total compensation would be

Rs.4,57,167/-. We award interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on

the said amount from the date of the petition till the date

of actual payment.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is

allowed in part. The judgment and award dated

01.12.2016 passed in MVC No.1/2014 on the file of the

Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VIII, Badami is set

aside and respondents are jointly and severally liable to

pay compensation of Rs.4,57,167/- along with interest at

6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of actual

payment.

10. Out of the compensation amount, 13% of the

compensation amount shall be kept in fixed deposit, in any

nationalized bank, in the name of each of the appellants

No.2, 3 and 4, appointing appellant No.1 as their guardian

till they attain majority. On attaining majority, the amount

shall be released in favour of appellants No.2, 3 and 4 to

the extent of their entitlement.

11. 31% of the compensation amount shall be

released in favour of appellant No.1. Out of the balance

30% of the compensation amount, 15% shall be released

in favour of the appellant No.5 and remaining 15% shall be

released in favour of appellant No.6.

Draw award accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

sh