The Manager Shri Ram General ... vs Tippanna S/O Manikappa Jamadar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5331 Kant

                             1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI


               MFA No.32725/2013 (MV)

Between:

The Manager,
Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Basavkalyan, Dist. Bidar.

Presently represented by its,
The Assistant Manager-Legal,
Head Office,
E-8 EPIP RIICO, Sitapur, Jaipur,
Rajashtan-302 022.
                                              ... Appellant

(By Sri Sudarshan M., Advocate)


And:

1.     Tippanna S/o Manikappa Jamadar,
       Aged about 43 years, Occ: Coolie,
       R/o Nandagaon, Taluk: Humnabad,
       Dist: Bidar.

2.     Gouramma W/o Tippanna Jamadar,
       Aged about 40 years, Occ: Household,
       R/o Nandagaon, Taluk: Humnabad,
       Dist: Bidar.
                              2




3.    Nagaraj S/o Tippanna Jamadar,
      Aged about 15 years, Occ: Student,
      R/o Nandagaon, Taluk: Humnabad,
      Dist: Bidar.

4.    Shashikala D/o Tippanna Jamadar,
      Aged about 12 years, Occ: Student,
      R/o Nandagaon, Taluk: Humnabad,
      Dist: Bidar.

      Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are minors
      Under guardianship of respondent No.1.

5.    Veershetty B. S/o Manikappa Biradar,
      Aged about 42 years, Occ: Business,
      R/o H.No.4-7-20/14/1, Maruti Nagar,
      Attapur, Dist: Rangareddy (AP)
                                        ... Respondents

(By Sri Gourish S. Khashampur,
 Advocate for R5-Absent;
Notice to R1 & R2 are served;
R3 & R4 are minors represented by R1)

      This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the M.V. Act praying to call for records in MVC
No.154/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT,
at Humnabad, set aside the judgment and award dated
17.08.2013 passed in MVC No.154/2011 by the Senior
Civil Judge & MACT, at Humnabad.


      This appeal coming on for Hearing, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
                                3




                          JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance company

under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for

short 'the Act') challenging the judgment and award

dated 17.08.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Humnabad (for short

hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in MVC

No.154/2011.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking

before the Tribunal. Appellant is respondent No.2,

respondent Nos.1 to 4 are petitioners and respondent

No.5 is respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are

that on 02.04.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased-

Tukaram S/o Tippanna was proceeding towards his

village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP.28/AL-8474

from Manna-E-Kheli along with his neighbour Sangappa

on NH-9 road. When they reached near Ranjool cross, a

Tempo Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.AP.28/TB-

2236 driven by its driver came in a high speed and in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed to the

motorcycle of the deceased-Tukaram. Due to which

Tukaram sustained injuries and died on the spot.

Hence, the petitioners being the legal representatives of

the deceased-Tukaram filed claim petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-

for the death of Tukaram in the road traffic accident.

4. Respondent No.2 filed written statement

denying the nature of the accident, age and income of

the deceased. It is contended that the accident took

place due to negligence of the deceased. It is

contended that the deceased did not have valid and

effective driving licence as on the date of the accident

and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of

the parties framed the issues and recorded the

evidence. In order to prove the case, petitioner No.1

was examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents

as Exs.P1 to P12. The respondents did not adduce any

evidence either oral or documentary.

6. The Tribunal after recording the evidence

and after considering the material on record held that

the petitioners have proved that the deceased-Tukaram

died in the accident, which occurred on 02.04.2010, due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle and held that the petitioners are

entitled for compensation and consequently, allowed the

claim petition in part and awarded compensation of

Rs.8,84,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of claim petition till the date of

realization and further, directed the respondents to pay

compensation.

7. Respondent No.2, aggrieved by the judgment

and award passed by the Tribunal, has filed this appeal

challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Tribunal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for respondent

No.2/Insurance company.

9. Inspite of service of notice, none appears for

petitioners. None appears for respondent No.5.

10. The learned counsel for respondent

No.2/Insurance company submits that the Tribunal has

committed an error in awarding compensation of

Rs.8,84,000/- which is on the higher side and he prays

to allow the appeal.

11. I have perused the records and considered

the submissions made by the learned counsel for

respondent No.2/Insurance company. The point that

arises for consideration is with regard to quantum of

compensation.

12. The occurrence of the accident, involvement

of the offending vehicle in the accident and death of the

deceased-Tukaram in the accident are not in dispute.

In order to prove that the accident has occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle, the petitioners have produced copy of

charge sheet which is marked as Ex.P8. From perusal of

Ex.P8, it would disclose that the accident has occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle.

13. Perusal of the impugned judgment would

indicate that the deceased-Tukaram was doing

agricultural coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- per

month. In order to substantiate the same, petitioners/

appellants did not tender any evidence. In terms of the

chart, for the accident of the year 2010, the notional

income of the deceased would have to be taken at

Rs.5,500/- per month. Though the Tribunal has taken

the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month,

but while calculating the loss of dependency, the

Tribunal has failed to add future prospects in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay

Sethi and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. In

view of he same, the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any

interference.

14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is

dismissed.

Amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*