Karnataka High Court
The Reliance General Insurance vs Prathima Ganiga on 14 March, 2022
Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar, M G Uma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.856/2019 (MV-D)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1396/2019 (MV-D)
IN MFA.No.856/2019
BETWEEN:
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE: WADAL, MUMBAI,
REP. BY MANGALORE OFFICE:
MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,
HAMPANAKATTA, MANGALORE.
ALSO AT THE RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
EAST WING, 5TH FLOOR, NO.28,
CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
NOW REPRESENTED BY
MANAGER LEGAL
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRATHIMA GANIGA
W/O LATE. PRABHAKARA GANIGA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
2
2. ARYAN
S/O LATE. PRABHAKARA GANIGA
AGED ABOUT 09 YEARS,
3. ATHMIKA
D/O LATE. PRABHAKARA GANIGA
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
MINORS REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER
PRATHIMA GANIGA AND THEY ARE
RESIDING AT MUDKERI,
NEAR NAGABANA TEMPLE,
FISH MARKET ROAD,
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
4. SEETHARAMA GANIGA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
5. MUKAMBU GANIGA
W/O SEETHARAMA GANIGA,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NANDANAVANA,
UPPUNDA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
6. SHRIKANTH MANOHAR DESHMUKH
(MAJOR) S/O MANOHAR DESHMUKH
R/O BALAP VILLAGE,
SUDHAGAD TALUK,
RAIGAD DISTRICT,
MAHARASHTRA - 410 205.
7. VILAS M. SHIRKE
S/O M. SHIRKE,
R/O FLAT NO.4/306,
AMAN ADHARSH REHAB BLDG.
NO.04, CHANAVARKAR ROAD,
OPP.: INDIAN BANK
BORIWELI, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA - 400 092.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R5;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1)
3
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06/12/2018, PASSED IN
MVC NO.782/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI (SITTING AT KUNDAPURA), AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.29,22,700/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A., FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
IN MFA.No.1396/2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PRATHIMA GANIGA
W/O. LATE. PRABHAKARA GANIGA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
2. MINOR ARYAN,
S/O. LATE. PRABHAKARA GANIGA
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
3. MINOR ATHMIKA,
D/O LATE. PRABHAKARA GANIGA
AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS,
APPELLANT NO.2 AND 3 ARE
MINORS REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER
PRATHIMA GANIGA AND THEY ARE
RESIDING AT MUDKERI,
NEAR NAGABANA TEMPLE,
FISH MARKET ROAD,
KUNDAPURA.
4. SRI. SEETHARAMA GANIGA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
5. SMT. MUKAMBU GANIGA,
W/O SEETHARAMA GANIGA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
NANDANAVANA,
4
UPPUNDA VILLAGE,
KUNDAPURA TALUK.
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. SHRIKANTH MANOHAR DESHMUKH
S/O. MANOHAR DESHMUKH,
AGE: MAJOR, R/O. BALAP VILLAGE,
SUDHAGAD TALUK,
RAIGAD DISTRICT,
MAHARASHTRA - 410 205.
2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: WADAL,
MUMBAI, REP. BY MANGALORE OFFICE,
MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
4TH FLOOR, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD,
HAMPANAKATTA,
MANGALORE
3. SRI. VILAS M. SHIRKE
S/O M. SHIRKE,
R/O. FLAT NO.4/306,
AMAN ADHARSH REHAB BLDG.,
04, CHANAVARKAR ROAD,
OPP: INDIAN BANK
BORIWELI, MUMBAI,
MAHARASHTRA - 400 092.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2.
R3 SERVED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2022
NOTICE TO R1 DELETED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:06.12.2018 PASSED IN
MVC NO.782/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
AND ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI [SITTING AT KUNDAPURA], KUNDAPURA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
P.S.DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
JUDGMENT
MFA.No.856/2018 is filed by the Insurer challenging
the liability and MFA.No.1396/2019 is filed by the claimants
seeking enhancement of compensation by challenging the
judgment and award dated December 6, 2018 in
MVC.No.782/2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Udupi sitting at
Kundapura.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as
per their status before the Tribunal.
3. Heard Shri Ashok.N.Patil, learned advocate for the
Insurer and Shri Nagaraja Hegde, learned advocate for the
claimants.
4. On November 1, 2013, first claimant's husband
Prabhakara Ganiga was travelling in a passenger vehicle
bearing No.MH.12.FF.5654. Due to rash and negligent driving,
the driver lost control and the vehicle toppled. No other
vehicle was involved in the said accident. Prabhakara Ganiga
sustained severe injuries all over his body and succumbed to
the injuries in the hospital. On adjudication of the claim
petition, Tribunal has awarded Rs.29,22,700/-. Hence, these
appeals.
5. Shri Patil for the Insurer urged two grounds;
• Firstly, deceased-Prabhakara Ganiga was the driver of
the vehicle. Therefore, his heirs are not entitled for any
compensation; and
• Secondly, the vehicle owned by respondent No.3 is
registered in the name of private individual and it has
been used for 'hire and reward', which is in violation of
the policy conditions.
6. Shri Hegde for the claimants submitted that the FIR has
been registered by a bystander and the charge sheet has
been filed against one Shri Dinesh.B.Nalawada. The same has
not been challenged by the Insurer. He argued that with
regard to hire and reward, no evidence has been let in, except
the self serving statement of RW.1, who is an official of the
Insurance Company.
7. So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned,
learned advocate for the claimants urged solitary ground that
the error has crept only in computation of loss of consortium
and other conventional heads.
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the records.
9. The principle contention urged on behalf of the Insurer
is that Prabhakara Ganiga was the driver of the vehicle.
Admittedly, the FIR has been lodged by the bystander.
It is asserted by Shri Patil that the vehicle was driven by
Prabhakara Ganiga himself. This assertion is based on the
evidence of RW.1, who is an official of the Insurance
Company. According to Shri Patil, name of the driver is not
mentioned in the FIR. Therefore, it must be inferred that
Prabhakara Ganiga was driving the vehicle. This argument is
untenable firstly because, the charge sheet has not been
challenged and secondly because there is no evidence on
record to support this contention.
10. The next ground urged is that the vehicle is registered
in the name of a private individual and the same has been
used for 'hire and reward' and on this aspect, evidence has
been let in and the Tribunal has rightly directed the Insurer to
pay and recover.
11. So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned,
Shri Hegde is right in his submission that the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.1,10,000/- towards loss of consortium, estate,
love and affection and transportation of funeral expenses.
There are in all five claimants. First claimant is the wife,
claimants No.2 and 3 are minor children of the
deceased-Prabhakara Ganiga and claimants No.4 and 5 are
his parents. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for
Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium
and Rs.30,000/- towards other conventional heads.
Hence, the claimants are entitled for additional compensation
of Rs.1,20,000/-.
12. The total compensation is re-computed as follows;
Description Amount
Sl.No.
a. Loss of consortium
(Rs.40,000 x 5) Rs.2,00,000
b. ADD: Conventional heads;
funeral expenses, etc., Rs.30,000
c. Total (a+b) Rs.2,30,000
d. LESS: Compensation awarded Rs.1,10,000
by the Tribunal towards Loss of
consortium and other
conventional heads
Additional Compensation Rs.1,20,000
13. Hence, the following;
ORDER
(i) MFA.No.856/2019, filed by the Insurer is
dismissed;
(ii) MFA.No.1396/2019, filed by the claimants is
allowed in part by holding that claimants are
entitled for an additional compensation of
Rs.1,20,000/- payable with interest at 6% p.a.,
from the date of filing claim petition till the date of
deposit;
(iii) Insurer shall pay the entire compensation amount
with interest at 6% p.a., excluding the amount
paid/deposited, if any, within six weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Disbursement shall be made as directed by the
Tribunal;
(iv) The statutory and other deposit made by the
insurer in this court shall be transferred to the
Tribunal forthwith; and
(v) The direction issued by the Tribunal to the Insurer
with regard to pay and recover remains
undisturbed.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
