Karnataka High Court
Laxmi W/O Shivappa Telgur And Anr vs Sayed S/O Ibrahim Paotel And Anr on 11 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.32429/2013 (MV)
Between:
1. Laxmi W/o Shivappa Telgur,
Age: 37 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Bandigera, Yadgiri.
2. Shivappa S/o Bhimshappa Telagur,
Age: 40 years, Occ: Coolie,
R/o Bandgera, Yadgiri.
... Appellants
(By Sri.Babu H.Metagudda, Advocate)
And:
1. Sayed S/o Ibrahim Patel,
Age: 34 years, Occ: Owner cum driver
of Tum tum auto rickshaw No.KA-33/5498,
R/o. Itaga, Tq: Shahapur,
Dist. Yadagiri-585 401.
2. The Manager,
Oriental Insurance Ltd.
Chitapur Road, Yadgiri,
Tq. & Dist: Yadgiri-585 401.
... Respondents
(By Sri. J.Augustin, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 served)
2
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, praying to allow this
appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
19.04.2013 passed in MVC No.110/2011 by the Member
MACT-II, At Yadgiri and enhancing the compensation from
Rs.2,50,000/- with 6% interest to Rs.4,00,000/- with 12%
interest. Allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and
award dated 19.04.2013 passed in MVC No.110/2011 by
the Member MACT-II at Yadgiri and fix the liability on the
insurance company.
This appeal coming on for final hearing, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act', for short) challenging the judgment and
award dated 19.04.2013 passed in MVC No.110/2011
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Yadgiri
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims
Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and
respondents are the respondents before the claims
Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that on 12.09.2010 at about 10.30
a.m., petitioner No.1 along with her son was
proceeding in Autorickshaw bearing registration
No.KA.33/5498 on Yadgiri-Shahapur road, near
Gundalli village. At that time, the auto driver was
driving the auto in high speed and in rash and
negligent manner and fell down on the side of the
road and consequently, the son of the petitioners has
sustained multiple grievous injuries and died
subsequently while taking treatment in the hospital.
The petitioners filed the claim petition under Section
166 of the Act seeking for compensation.
4. The respondent No.2 filed the written
statement denying the averments made in the claim
petition. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded evidence. The petitioners in order to prove
their case, examined petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 and in
order to prove the disability, examined the doctor as
P.W.2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P12. The official of respondent No.2 was examined
as R.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.R1 and R2.
The Tribunal after recording the evidence and
considering the material on record allowed the claim
petition in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present
appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation
amount.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the Tribunal has awarded a lesser compensation
amount and prays to enhance the compensation
amount. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
No.2, Insurance Company supports the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He
further submits that the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
9. The point that arises for consideration is
with regard to quantum of compensation.
10. The occurrence of the accident is not in
dispute. In order to prove that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioners have
produced the copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.P3.
The Tribunal considering that the owner cum driver of
the autorickshaw did not possess the valid licence but
was possessing the licence to drive a light motor
vehicle, has fixed the liability on the owner of the
vehicle. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited and Others, reported in (2017)
14 SCC 663, held that even if a person holding the
light motor vehicle licence is permitted to drive a
transport vehicle.
11. Insofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,50,000/-
with interest at 6% per annum, the same is on the
lower side.
12. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA
No.8030/2016 disposed of on 12.01.2022 in paragraph
Nos.9 and 10 has held as under:
"9. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Sagar since deceased by his LRs.
Vs. Suresh and two others reported in
2014 KAR MAC 506 (KAR) relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in of
Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and
others reported in 2014 (1) SCC 244
case has awarded compensation of
Rs.4,50,000/- towards 'loss of dependency' in
case of death of a boy who was aged 6 years.
10. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to
rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Kishna Gopal's case stated supra and award
compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- towards 'loss of
dependency' and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
love and affection, funeral expenses and
transportation of a dead body and the total
compensation comes to Rs.5,00,000/-."
13. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the
petitioners are entitled to compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- as against Rs.2,50,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal.
14. In view of the above discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part.
The judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal in MVC No.110/2011 dated
19.04.2013 is modified. The petitioners
are entitled to an enhanced compensation
of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the date of
realization.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2, are liable
to pay compensation amount. Respondent
No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount along with interest,
within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
