Karnataka High Court
Smt. Saritha W/O Late K.V. Anand vs G.Deepak Singh on 19 January, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
M.F.A. No.24618/2013
C/W M.F.A.No.24616/2013
& M.F.A.No.24617/2013 (MV)
IN MFA No.241 68/ 2013
BET WEEN
1. SMT.SARIT HA,
W/O LATE K.V.ANAND,
AGED AB OU T 28 YEARS.
2. SMT.AMBIKAMMA,
W/O LATE VADIVELU,
AGED AB OU T 53 YEARS,
ALL ARE RES IDING AT PRAB HU CAMP,
WARD No.3, No.10, MU DDAPURA,
HOSAPETE TALUK, B ALLARI DISTR ICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. G.DEEPAK S INGH,
S/O NARAYANA SINGH,
MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRAX
B EARING REG.No.AP-21/V-9597,
R/O 9 T H WARD, KAMPLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK,
B ALLARI DISTR ICT.
2. SMT.HARPEET KAUR AJMANI,
W/O JASVINDER S INGH,
MAJOR, OWNER OF THE LORRY
B EARING REG.No.MP-09/ HG- 15 11,
2
R/O 41 V ISHNUPURI COLONY ,
INDORE- 452001, M.P.
3. THE MANAGER,
M/S BHARAT I AX A GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.28, 1 S T FLOOR, FERNS ICON,
DODDANEKUNDI,
OFF OU TER RING ROAD,
MARATHAHALL I,
B ENGALU RU-560037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHU KAR, ADVOCAT E FOR R1;
SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOOR I, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2 013 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1365/2012 ON THE F ILE OF THE FAST TRACK
COURT-I AND MEMBER, MOT OR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIB UNAL-IX, B ALLAR I, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.246 16/ 2013
BET WEEN
1. SMT.V.MEENAKSHI,
W/O LATE V.SURESH,
AGED AB OU T 21 YEARS.
2. MINOR MANIKANT A,
S/O LAT E V.SURESH,
AGED AB OU T 3 YEARS.
3. RAMANJINI,
S/O LAT E HANU MANTHAPPA,
AGED AB OU T 56 YEARS.
4. SMT.HONNU RAMMA,
W/O SRI RAMANJINI,
AGED AB OU T 51 YEARS.
3
APPELLANT NO.2 IS SINCE MINOR
REP.B Y HIS MOTHER AND NATU RAL GU ARDIAN
SMT.V.MEENAKSHI W/O LAT E V.SURESH.
ALL ARE RES IDING AT SANAPU RA ROAD,
KAMPLI, HOSA PET E TALUK,
B ALLARI DISTR ICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. G.DEEPAK S INGH,
S/O NARAYANA SINGH,
MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRAX
B EARING REG.No.AP-21/V-9597,
R/O 9 T H WARD, KAMPLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK,
B ALLARI DISTR ICT.
2. SMT.HARPEET KAUR AJMANI,
W/O JASVINDER S INGH,
MAJOR, OWNER OF THE LORRY
B EARING REG.No.MP-09/ HG- 15 11,
R/O 41 V ISHNUPURI COLONY ,
INDORE- 452001, M.P.
3. THE MANAGER,
M/S BHARAT I AX A GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
NO.28, 1 S T FLOOR, FERNS ICON,
DODDANEKUNDI,
OFF OU TER RING ROAD,
MARATHAHALL I,
B ENGALU RU-560037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHU KAR, ADVOCAT E FOR R1;
SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOOR I, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2 013 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1363/2012 ON THE F ILE OF THE FAST TRACK
COURT-I AND MEMBER, MOT OR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
4
TRIB UNAL-IX, B ALLAR I, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA No.246 17/ 2013
BET WEEN
1. SMT.B .SU JAT HA,
W/O LATE B.RAMANJIN I,
AGED AB OU T 23 YEARS.
2. VENKATASWAMY,
S/O B .SOMAPPA,
AGED AB OU T 61 YEARS.
3. SMT.DEVIKAMMA,
W/O VENKAT ASWAMY ,
AGED AB OU T 57 YEARS,
ALL ARE RES IDING AT 16 T H WARD,
NEAR MAREMMA TEMPLE, KAMPLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK, B ALLARI DISTR ICT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. G.DEEPAK S INGH,
S/O NARAYANA SINGH,
MAJOR, OWNER OF THE TRAX
B EARING REG.No.AP-21/V-9597,
R/O 9 T H WARD, KAMPLI,
HOSAPETE TALUK,
B ALLARI DISTR ICT.
2. SMT.HARPEET KAUR AJMANI,
W/O JASVINDER S INGH,
MAJOR, OWNER OF THE LORRY
B EARING REG.No.MP-09/ HG- 15 11,
R/O 41 V ISHNUPURI COLONY ,
INDORE- 452001, M.P.
3. THE MANAGER,
M/S BHARAT I AX A GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
5
NO.28, 1 S T FLOOR, FERNS ICON,
DODDANEKUNDI,
OFF OU TER RING ROAD,
MARATHAHALL I,
B ENGALU RU-560037.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHU KAR, ADVOCAT E FOR R1;
SRI NAGARAJ C.KOLLOOR I, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEH ICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST
THE J UDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 02.04.2 013 PASS ED IN
MVC No.1364/2012 ON THE F ILE OF THE FAST TRACK
COURT-I AND MEMBER, MOT OR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIB UNAL-IX, B ALLAR I, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PET IT ION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE A PPEA LS COMING ON FOR ADMISS ION, T HIS
DAY THE COU RT DELIVERED THE FOLLOW ING:
JUDGMENT
These three ap peals arise out of a common
judgment and award passed by the Court of Fast
Track Court-I and Member, M.A.C.T-IX, Ballari
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal', for brevity)
on 02.04.2013 in MVC Nos.1363, 1364 and 1365 of
2013 and therefore all the appeals are heard together
and disposed off by 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 before the Tribunal for
the purpose of convenience.
3. The undisputed facts of the case that would
be relevant for the purpose of disposal of these
appeals are:
On 22.11.2012, the deceased V.Suresh,
D.Ramanjini and K.V.Anand were all traveling in a
tempo trax bearing registration No.AP-21/V-9597 and
they were returning after completing their
Shabarimale temple visit. At about 6.30 a.m. when
their vehicle reached near Halakundi village on
Bengaluru-Ballari road, the driver of the tempo trax
in which the deceased were traveling along with other
inmates, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner dashed against a lorry bearing
registration No.MP-09/HG-1511 which was parked on
the roadside from its rare side and caused the
accident. As a result, V.Suresh, D.Ramanjini and
K.V.Anand who had suffered grievous injury in the
accident succumbed to the same. The claimants who
are the legal representatives of the deceased had
filed three separate claim petitions under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act')
in MVC Nos.1363, 1364 and 1365 of 2012 claiming
compensation from the owner and insurer of both the
vehicles in respect of the death of deceased persons
in the road traffic accident that had taken place on
22.11.2012. The Tribunal vide the impugned
judgment and award had partly allowed the said
claim petitions awarding compensation of `9,32,488/-
to the claimants in MVC No.1363/2012 and
compensation of `7,86,300/- each to the claimant in
MVC Nos.1364 and 1365 of 2012 respectively. The
Tribunal had fixed the liability to pay the
compensation amount jointly and severally on the
owner as well as the insurer of both the vehicles and
awarded interest at 6% per annum on the
compensation amount from the date of petition till
realization. Being aggrieved by the said judgment
and award, the claimants are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
claimants is on the lower side. He submits that the
notional income has been taken at `4,500/- per
month whereas it ought to have been taken at
`6,500/- per month having regard to the income
chart maintained by the Karnataka Legal Services
Authority for the purpose of disposal of motor
accident cases in the Lok Adalath. He submits that
even under the conventional heads, the claimants are
entitled for higher compensation. He further submits
that since the case is one of composite negligence by
the drivers of both the vehicles, the claimants are at
liberty to proceed as against any one of the
owner/insurer of the vehicles involved in the
accident. He submits that the determination of the
extent of negligence between two tort feasors is only
for the purpose of their inter-se liability and the
same will not come in the way of the claimants
proceeding against any one of the tort feasors for
recovering the compensation amount. In support of
his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khenyei v/s
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and others reported
in 2015 ACJ Volume 3 page 1441 and also relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
Ganesh v/s Syed Munned Ahamed And Ors.
reported in 2000 ACJ 1463.
5. Per contra, Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori, learned
counsel appearing for the insurer submits that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal in all the
three cases is just and proper and needs no
interference. He submits that claimants have not
urged any ground in the appeal relating to the
challenge with regard to their right to proceed
against any one of the tortfeasors and therefore the
claimants cannot urge any contention in that regard.
He further submits that the judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with the law
prevailing as on the date of said order and therefore
no interference is called for.
6. I have carefully appreciated the arguments
addressed on both sides and also perused the
material available on record.
7. The accident in question is not disputed, so
also the involvement of the two vehicles bearing
registration No.AP-21/V-9597 and lorry bearing
registration No.MP-09/ HG-1511 in the said accident
which had taken place on 22.11.2012. It is also not
in dispute that the tempo trax bearing registration
No.AP-21/V-9597 did not have a valid insurance as
on the date of accident while the lorry bearing
registration No.MP-09/HG-1511 which was involved in
the accident was duly insured as on the date of
accident by the 5 t h respondent namely Bharati Axa
General Insurance Company Limited. In the said
accident, three persons had expired and the
claimants in all these three cases are the legal
representatives of the said deceased persons.
8. MVC No.1363/2012 is filed by the wife, son
and parents of the deceased V.Suresh. Deceased
Suresh was aged about 30 years as on the date of
accident. As rightly contended by the learned counsel
for the claimants having regard to the fact that the
accident in question had taken place in the year
2012, the Tribunal ought to have been taken the
notional income of the deceased at `6,500/- in view
of the income chart maintained by the Karnataka
Legal Services Authority for the purpose of disposal
of motor accident cases in the Lok Adalath as against
`4,500/- taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
Having regard to the age of the deceased, 40% of his
income ought to have been taken into consideration
towards loss of his future prospects and out of the
total income, 1/4 t h was required to be deducted
towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier
applicable in the case would be '17'. In the said
event, the claimants would be entitled for a total sum
of `13,92,300/- towards loss of dependency. In
addition to the same, the claimants are entitled for a
sum of `40,000/- each towards loss of consortium
and loss of filial love and affection. The claimants are
also entitled for a further sum of `30,000/- towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore under
the conventional heads, the claimants are entitled for
a sum of `1,90,000/-. In all, the claimants are
entitled for a compensation of `15,82,300/- as
against `9,32,448/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. In MVC No.1364/2012, the claimants are
the wife and parents of the deceased. The deceased
was aged about 31 years as on the date of accident.
The notional income of the deceased even in this
case is required to be taken at `6,500/- per month.
40% of his income is required to be taken into
consideration towards loss of future prospects. 1/3 r d
of his total income is required to be deducted
towards his personal expenses and the proper
multiplier applicable in this case would be '16'. In the
said event, the claimants are entitled for a sum of
`11,64,800/- towards loss of dependency. In addition
to the same under the conventional heads, the
claimants are entitled for a total sum of `1,50,000/-.
Therefore in all, the claimants are entitled for a
compensation of `13,14,800/- as against `7,86,300/-
awarded by the Tribunal.
10. In MVC No.1365/2012, the claimants are
the wife and mother of the deceased. The deceased
was aged about 35 years as on the date of accident.
His notional income is required to be taken at
`6,500/- in view of the income chart maintained by
the Karnataka Legal Services Authority as against
`3,900/- taken into consideration by the Tribunal.
Having regard to the age of the deceased, 40% of his
income ought to have been taken into consideration
towards loss of his future prospects and out of the
total income, 1/3 r d was required to be deducted
towards his personal expenses. The proper multiplier
applicable in the case would be '16'. In the said
event, the claimants would be entitled for a total sum
of `11,64,800/- towards loss of dependency. In
addition to the same, the claimants are entitled for a
sum of `40,000/- each towards loss of consortium
and loss of filial love and affection. The claimants are
entitled for a further sum of `30,000/- towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore under
the conventional heads, the claimants are entitled for
a sum of `1,10,000/-. In all, the claimants are
entitled for a compensation of `12,74,800/- as
against `7,86,300/- awarded by the Tribunal.
11. In all the three cases, the enhanced
amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6%
per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei
which was also a case of composite negligence in
which the accident was caused by collision between
the bus and truck due to composite negligence of
both the drivers, has held that in a claim petition
where all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded,
it is open to the Tribunal to determine inter-se extent
of composite negligence of the drivers. However
determination of the extent of negligence between
joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of inter-se
liability, so that one may recover the sum from the
other after making whole payment to the claimants to
the extent it has satisfied liability on the other.
Therefore, it is very clear that in a case of composite
negligence the claimant can recover the
compensation amount from anyone of the joint tort
feasors. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case
had made it clear that in a case of composite
negligence, apportionment of compensation between
two tort feasors vis-à-vis the claimant is not
permissible and that the claimant can recover at his
option whole damages from any of them. Even the
full bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh
wherein the accident was caused due to head-on-
collision between two trucks, it has been held that
the injured person or the legal representatives of the
deceased is entitled to claim entire compensation
from all or any of the drivers, owners and insurers of
the vehicles.
12. In view of the aforesaid pronouncements
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the
full bench of this Court, I am of the considered view
that the determination of inter-se extent of
composite negligence on the part of the drivers of the
two vehicles which are involved in the present case
by the Tribunal is required to be considered that the
same is done only for the purpose of the inter-se
liability of the tort feasors so that one may recover
the sum from the other after making the whole
payment to the claimant to the extent it has satisfied
liability on the other and such a determination will
not come in the way of the claimant proceeding
against anyone of the tort feasors to recover the
compensation amount in its entirety. Therefore, it is
held that the claimants in all these cases are at
liberty to proceed against the owner/insurer of
anyone of the vehicles involved in the accident in
question for recovery of the entire compensation
amount with interest awarded to them.
13. The order passed by the Tribunal insofar as
it relates to apportionment, disbursement and deposit
etc., remain unaltered and the same would also be
applicable to the enhanced amount of compensation.
The appeals are accordingly partly allowed.
SD/-
JUDGE
CLK
