Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Suresh S/O Veeraraju on 3 March, 2022
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S. SANJAY GOWDA
MFA No.20618/2010 (MV)
C/w. MFA No.20617/2010 (MV)
& MFA Crob. No.744/2010 (MV)
In MFA No.20617/2010
In MFA No.20618/2010:
Between:
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
105/A, 1st Floor, Cears Plaza, 136,
Residency Road, Bengalore-560 025,
(Allied Assurance Services, No.15, 1st Floor)
and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Vivekanand Corner, Desai Cross, Hubballi-29,
now at 4th Floor, V.A. Kalburgi Mansion,
Opp: Municipal Corporation, Lamington Road, Hubballi,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.
... Appellant
(By ShriRavindra R. Mane, Advocate)
And:
1. Smt. Tammineedi Suguna
W/o. Tammineedi Satyanarayana,
Age 46 years, Occ: Household,
R/o.: Poduru, Mandalpoduru,
Tq. & Dist.: West-Godavari (A.P.)
Now R/at Ayodhya, Tq.: Gangavathi,
Dist.: Koppal.
2. Smt. Pavaloori Rama Devi,
W/o. Payaloori Prasad, Age 42 years,
:2:
Occ: Household, R/o.: Devi Camp,
Tq.: Gangavathi, Dist.: Koppal.
3. Shri V. Satyanarayana S/o. Ramakrishna,
Age 34 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/at Mustoor, Tq.: Gangavathi, Dist.: Koppal.
4. Shri David Raju S/o. Sudharshan P.,
At Post Ayodhya, Tq.: Gangavathi.
... Respondents
(By Shri Santosh B.Malagouidar, Advocate for R1 & R2;
R3 & R4 - served & unrepresented)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of M.V. Act, against the
judgment and award dated 12.11.2009, passed in MVC No.199/2007
on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and MACT, Gangavathi, awarding
the compensation of Rs.4,05,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
from the date of petition till deposit.
IN MFA No.20617/2010:
Between:
The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Allied Assurance Services, No.15, 1st Floor,
Metropolitan Club, Double Road, Ballari,
Rep. herein by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
4th Floor, V.A. KalburgiMansion, Opp: Municipal
Corporation, Lamington Road, Hubballi,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.
... Appellant
(By Shri Ravindra R. Mane, Advocate)
And:
1. Suresh S/o. Veeraraju,
Age 21 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Mustur Camp, Tq.: Gangavathi,
Dist.: Koppal.
2. Shri V. Satyanarayana S/o. Ramakrishna,
Age 34 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Mustur Camp, Tq.: Gangavathi,
Dist.: Koppal.
:3:
3. Shri David Raju S/o. Sudharshan,
Age 41 years, Occ: Church Father,
R/o.: Ayodhya, Tq.: Gangavathi.
... Respondents
(By Shri B. Sharanabasava, Advocate for C/R1;
R2 & R3 - served & unrepresented)
This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act, against
the Judgment and award dated 12.11.2009, passed in MVC
No.134/2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Member
MACT, Gangavathi, awarding the compensation of Rs.1,02,960/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
In MFA Crob. No.744/2010:
Between:
Suresh S/o. Veeraraju,
Age 22 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o.: Mustur Camp, Tq.: Gangavathi,
Dist.: Koppal.
... Cross-objector,
(By Shri B. Sharanabasava, Advocate)
And:
1. Shri David Raju S/o. Sudharshan,
Age 42 years, Occ: Church Father
& Owner of the Bajaj C.T. 100
Bearing No.KA-37/K-9539
R/o.: Ayodhya, Tq.: Gangavathi, Dist.: Koppal.
2. The Branch Manager,
(Bajaj Allianz) Allied Assurance
Alienation Services, No.15, 1st Floor,
Metropolitan Club, Double Road,
Tq. & Dist.: Ballari.
... Respondents
(By Shri Ravindra R. Mane, Advocate for R2;
R1 - served & unrepresented)
:4:
This MFA Cross-objection is filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of the
CPC read with Section 173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988 against the judgment
and award dated 12.11.2009, passed in MVC No.134/2007 on the file
of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Member MACT, Gangavathi, allowing
the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of
compensation.
These appeals and cross-objection coming on for final hearing,
this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
1. MFA No.20618/2010 is filed by the Insurance
Company.
2. A claim application was filed by the daughters
of N.Krishnaveni claiming compensation for her death,
in an accident which occurred on 23.09.2006. It was
stated that their mother while walking as a pedestrian
on Ayodhya - Danapur Road was hit by a motorcycle
bearing registration No.KA-37/K-9539 and had suffered
grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the
injuries on the same day. They claimed a compensation
of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. The owner of the motorcycle and the rider of
the motorcycle entered appearance and contested the
matter. The owner of the motorcycle denied all the
averments and set up the plea that the accident had
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased herself.
It was stated that the claimants were married
daughters and were not entitled to claim compensation.
4. The respondent No.3 - Insurance Company,
as usual, denied all the averments in the claim petition.
They also contended that the claimants were living
separately after their marriage and therefore could not
be said to be dependent on the deceased. They also
took up the plea and the motorcycle alleged had not at
all involved in the accident, but was implicated by way
of collusion between the insured, the claimants and the
Police.
5. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence
especially the FIR, the Charge Sheet and the
postmortem report, came to the conclusion that the
accident had occurred and as a result of the accident
N.Krishnaveni had died. The Tribunal accordingly
decided to determine the compensation and awarded a
sum of Rs.4,05,400/-. This award of compensation has
in fact been accepted by the claimants.
6. The Insurance Company is however in appeal.
It is urged that this was a clear case of the motorcycle
having been implicated, since as per the FIR, it had
been stated as "it was a hit and run case" and only
thereafter the motorcycle in question was named. It
was also urged that in the criminal prosecution all the
witnesses had turned hostile and the rider of the
motorcycle had in fact been acquitted and therefore,
the Tribunal ought not to have come to the conclusion
that there had been an accident.
7. The FIR, no doubt, states that the deceased
was hit by a motorcycle and the registration of the
motorcycle had not been mentioned. It is to be stated
here that the accident had occurred at about 10:00
p.m. on 23.09.2006 and the complaint was lodged on
the following day morning i.e., on 24.09.2006 at 6:00
a.m. and this complaint was lodged by one Ramu who
was not an eyewitness. Therefore, the fact that the
vehicle number was mentioned in the complaint cannot
lead to an inference that the motorcycle was
implicated.
8. The Police after the investigation, have in
fact charge sheeted the rider of the motorcycle and this
by itself indicates the involvement of the motorcycle. It
is also pertinent to state here that the pillion rider of
the motorcycle had also lodged a claim petition in MVC
No.199/2007 alleging that he had suffered injuries as a
result of the collision between the motor cycle and
N.Krishnaveni. The fact that the pillion rider had
himself contended that the motorcycle collided with the
deceased and as a result, he had suffered injures
proves that the accident did occur between the
motorcycle and the deceased. In my view, the evidence
on record has been correctly appreciated and the
Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the
motorcycle in question was involved in the accident,
which resulted in the death of N.Krishnaveni. There is
no error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal
justifying interference in the appeal.
9. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal
has been accepted by the claimants and hence, there
would be no need to examine the same. It may be
pertinent to state here that the Tribunal has also
correctly come to the conclusion that the claimants
notwithstanding the fact that they were married
daughter would come within the purview of the
definition of legal representatives under the MV Act and
hence, they were entitled to compensation.
10. I find no reason to entertain this appeal (MFA
No 20618/2010) and the appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
11. MFA No.20617/2010 arises out of the very
same accident in respect of which the above mentioned
connected appeal filed by the Insurance Company has
been dismissed.
12. In MFA No.20618/2010, the contention of the
Insurance Company that the motorcycle was implicated
has been rejected and it has been held that the
accident did occur in which the motorcycle collided with
the deceased-N.Krishnaveni. In the instant case, the
respondent-claimant is the pillion rider and was
traveling in the motorcycle at the time of accident.
13. As held in MFA No.20618/2010, since the
claimant herein himself admitted that the motorcycle in
which he was riding pillion met with an accident, by
itself, proves the factum of accident. The Tribunal on
consideration of the evidence has come to the
conclusion that as per the wound certificate at Ex.P4,
the claimant had sustained the following injuries:
(1) Abrasion over the left maxillary proximance;
(2) Abrasion over the left shoulder;
(3) Fracture of 1/3 r d lecft side.
14. The Tribunal after taking into consideration
the evidence has come to the conclusion that the
claimant was entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.1,02,960/-.
15. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that the said award is exorbitant.
16. A cross-objection in MFA Crob.No.744/2010 is
also preferred by the claimant seeking for
enhancement.
17. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that
in the absence of documentary evidence, the monthly
income of the claimant should be taken as Rs.3,600/.
The Tribunal has also held that a sum of Rs.12,000/-
would be a just compensation towards pain and
suffering, apart from a sum of Rs.7,200/- towards loss
of earning during medical treatment; Rs.3,000/-
towards medical expenses.
18. The Tribunal has noticed that the physical
impairment of the claimant was to the extent 10 to
12% to his left shoulder and it has accordingly
concluded that there was 10% disability to the whole
body. The Tribunal has accordingly awarded a sum of
Rs.77,760/- by applying the multiplier of 10.
19. In my view, the determination of
compensation by the Tribunal is just and proper and
does not call for any interference. Consequently, the
appeal in MFA No.20617/2010 and the cross-objection
in MFA Crob. No.744/2010 are rejected.
20. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in
accordance with the award.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*
