The Manager vs Sri Mahalingaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 7974 Kant

                            1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022

                          BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

               MFA No.6714 OF 2021(MV)

BETWEEN:

The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Branch Office, East Wing,
5th Floor, Centenary Building,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
Rep. by its Branch,
The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Near T.G.M.C. Bank, B.H.Road,
Tumakuru - 572 102.
Rep. by its Manager Legal.               ... Appellant

(By Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar., Advocate)

AND:

1. Sri.Mahalingaiah,
   S/o Lingappa.N.T.,
   Aged about 45 years,

2. Smt.Mangalamma,
   W/o Mahalingaiah,
   Aged about 41 years,

3. Divayshree.N.M,
   D/o Mahalingaiah,
   Aged about 19 years,
                                2



  All are R/at:
  Nimbekatte Bidare Village,
  Chelur Hobli,
  Gubbi Taluk - 572 117.
  Now Residing at:
  C/o Vijaya Kumar,
  Don Bosco School,
  D.M. Palya,
  Tumakuru - 572 106.

4. Sri.B.M.Swamy,
   S/o Nagaraju,
   Aged about 39 years,
   R/at Bukkasagara,
   Yaliyur Post, Utharidurga Hobli,
   Kunigal Taluk,
   Tumakuru District - 572 126.          ... Respondents

(By Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, Advocate for R1 to R3;
  Notice to R4 is dispensed with)

      This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of MV Act,
against the Judgment and Award dated 19.03.2021 passed
in MVC No.953/2019 on the file of the VI Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, awarding compensation of
Rs.22,01,800/- with future interest at 6 percent p.a. from
the date of petition till realization of entire amount.

      This MFA, coming on for orders, this day, this Court,
delivered the following:

                     JUDGMENT

This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',

for short) has been filed by the Insurance Company

being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.03.2021

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Tumakuru in MVC No.953/2019.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 24.06.2019 at about 1.30

p.m. the deceased Manoj was proceeding on Dio

motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-06/HB-4899

from Koratagere side towards Tumakuru. At that

time, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-06/AA-2879

which was being driven in a rash and negligent

manner, came from opposite direction and dashed

against the vehicle of the deceased. As a result of the

aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous

injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

the deceased along with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed

separate written statements in which the averments

made in the petition were denied. The age,

occupation and income of the deceased are denied. It

was pleaded that the petition itself is false and

frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded by

respondent No.1 that the offending vehicle was

insured with respondent No.2. It was further pleaded

that the quantum of compensation claimed is highly

exorbitant, excessive.

It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the

driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid

driving licence as on the date of the accident. The

liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of

compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant.

Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to

prove their case, examined claimant No.1 as PW-1

and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P26.. On behalf of

respondents, neither any witness was examined nor

got exhibited documents. The Claims Tribunal, by the

impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident

took place on account of rash and negligent driving of

the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of

which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed

to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the

claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.22,01,800/- along with interest at the rate of 6%

p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Insurance

Company has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, even though the claimants claim that the

deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, the

same is not established by the claimants by producing

documents. Therefore, notional income assessed by

the Tribunal at Rs.14,000/- per month is on the higher

side.

Secondly, since the claimants have not

established the income of the deceased, they are not

entitled for compensation towards 'future prospects'.

Thirdly, the overall compensation claimed by the

claimants is Rs.20,00,000/-. But the Tribunal has

awarded compensation of Rs.22,01,800/- which is

more than the claim made by the claimants.

Fourthly, considering the age and avocation of

the deceased, the overall compensation awarded by

the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence, he sought

for reduction of compensation.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing

for the claimants has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the claimants claim that the deceased

was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by doing

agriculture and milk vending business. But the

Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income

of the deceased as only Rs.14,000/-.

Secondly, even though the claimants have

claimed Rs.20,00,000/- compensation the Tribunal

has jurisdiction to grant just and reasonable

compensation on the basis of the materials available

on record.

Thirdly, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal under the conventional heads is on the lower

side. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that deceased Manoj

died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

driver.

At the time of the accident the deceased was

aged about 20 years and he was doing agriculture and

milk vending business. Considering the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY

SETHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2017 SC

5157 and MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Vs. NANU RAM reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the

overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on

the higher side and the same is reduced to

Rs.21,75,000/-.

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

the compensation amount of Rs.21,75,000/- *, within

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy

of this judgment.

The amount in deposit is ordered to be

transferred to the Tribunal forthwith.

*Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cm/-

*Deleted & inserted as per court order dated 21.06.2022