Karnataka High Court
Khandeppa S/O Dashrath Metre And ... vs Gurulingayya S/O Chennamallaya ... on 24 March, 2022
Bench: Ashok S. Kinagi
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.201222/2014 (MV)
C/w
MFA CROB No.200059/2014
In MFA No.201222/2014
Between:
1. Gurulingayya S/o Chennamallayya Swamy,
By his LRs.
1(a) Ravindra S/o Gurulingayya Swamy,
Age: 33 years, Occ: Driver,
R/o H.No.139, Village Gadigondgaon,
Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar.
1(b) Rachamma W/o Late Gurulingayya Swamy,
Age: 60 years, Occ: Household,
R/o H.No.139, Village Gadigondgaon,
Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar-585 401.
... Appellants
(By Sri. Babu H.Metagudda, Advocate)
And:
1. Khandeppa S/o Dashrath Metre,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Chenchalabai W/o Khandeppa Metre,
Age: 42 years, Occ: Household,
Both R/o Village Gadigondgaon,
Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar-585 401.
2
3. The Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
E-8, EPIPRICO, Industrial area Sitapur,
Dist. Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022, India.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Sanjeev Patil, Advocate for Sri.Biradar
Viranagouda, Advocate for R1 & R2;
By Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R3)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of the M.V.Act praying to call for the records in
MVC No.18/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge &
Addl. MACT at Basavakalyanl; Allow this appeal and set
aside the judgment and award dated 31.12.2013 passed in
MVC No.18/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT at
Basavakalyan. And Fixed the liability on the insurance
company. Allow this appeal and direct the insurance
company to pay the compensation to the claimant; Allow
this appeal and modify the judgment and award dated
31.12.2013 passed in MVC No.18/2013 by reducing the
compensation awarded by the Senior Civil Judge & Addl.
MACT at Basavakalyan.
In MFA CROB No.200059/2014
Between:
1. Khandeppa S/o Dashrath Metre,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,
2. Chenchalabai W/o Khandeppa Metre,
Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture,
Both are R/o Village Gadigondagaon,
Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar-585 327.
... Cross Objectors
(By Sri. Sanjeev Patil, Advocate)
3
And:
1. Gurulingayya S/o Chennamallayya Swamy,
Age: Major, Occ: Owner of
Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-39/6397,
H.N.139, R/o Village Gadigondagaon,
Tq. Basavakalyan, Dist. Bidar-585 327.
2. The Manager,
Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
E-8, EPIP RICO, Industrial Area Sitapur,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302022, India.
... Respondents
(By Sri. Babu H.Metagudda, Advocate for R1;
By Sri. Subhash Mallapur, Advocate for R2)
This MFA CROB is filed U/o 41 R-22 CPC, praying to
allow this Cross Objection / Appeal by modifying the award
of judgment and award dated 31.12.2013 passed by
learned Senior Civil Judge & Addl. MACT Basavakalyan, in
MVC No.18/2013 and award the compensation as prayed
in the claim petition.
MFA and Cross-Objection coming on for hearing, this
day, the Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This M.F.A.No.201222/2014 is filed by the
respondent No.1/owner and
M.F.A.Crob.No.200059/2014 is filed by the Cross-
Objectors challenging the judgment and award dated
31.12.2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge &
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Basavakalyan (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in MVC No.18/2013.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Claims
Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are
as under:
That, on 10.07.2012 at about 10.30 p.m., the
deceased-Sahadev was working as a cleaner and also
agriculturist. On that day deceased-Sahadev along
with lorry driver Rajkumar @ Raju were proceeding
from Chennai to Maroor on N.H.5 road in a Lorry
bearing registration No.KA-39/6397. The said
Rajukumar @ Raju was driving the lorry in rash and
negligent manner and lost the control over the same
and dashed to the ongoing lorry bearing registration
No.AP-26/U-6567 and caused the accident. Due to
which deceased sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the injuries on 11.07.2012. The
petitioners being the legal representatives of the
deceased-Sahadev filed claim petition under Section
166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation on account
of the death of Sahadev in the road traffic accident.
4. The respondent No.1 appeared through
counsel and filed written statement denying the
averments made in the claim petition and also denied
the manner of accident, age, occupation and income
of the deceased and also denied the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing
registration No.KA-39/6397 and prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
5. The respondent No.2 - Insurance company
filed written statement denying the averments made
in the claim petition and also denied the date, time,
month, year, place of accident and manner of
accident, involvement of the lorry and age,
occupation, income, dependency of the petitioners on
the deceased. Further, contended that the driver of
the said lorry was not holding valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings
of the parties framed the issues.
7. The petitioners in order to prove their case,
examined petitioner No.1 as PW.1 and got marked the
documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. On behalf of the
respondents, driver of the offending vehicle-Rajkumar
was examined as RW-1.
8. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence
and considering the material on record, held that the
petitioners have proved that the deceased-Sahadev
died in the accident, arising out of lorry bearing
registration No.KA-39/6397 occurred on 10.07.2012.
Further, held that petitioners are entitled for
compensation and allowed the claim petition in part
and awarded a compensation of Rs.6,21,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of
petition, till its realization and further fastened the
liability on the respondent No.1, on the ground that,
the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing
valid and effective driving licence as on the date of
accident. Respondent No.1 aggrieved by the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has filed
this appeal fastening liability on him and petitioners
filed M.F.A.Crob. seeking for enhancement of
compensation, respectively.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/owner, learned counsel for the
petitioners and also learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1
submits that the Tribunal has committed an error in
fastening the liability on the respondent No.1. He
further submits that as on the date of accident, the
driver was possessing valid and effective driving
licence to drive transport vehicle. As per Ex.P6 the
driver of the offending vehicle was having driving
licence to drive transport Vehicle w.e.f. 11.08.2011 to
10.08.2014. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the appeal and prays to dismiss cross-objection.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on
the lower side. Hence, he prays to allow the Cross-
objection and prays to dismiss the appeal filed by
respondent No.1.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company fairly concedes
that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing
valid and effective driving licence to drive heavy
transport vehicle as per Ex.P6.
13. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties.
14. The point that arises for consideration are
with regard to liability and quantum of compensation.
15. It is not in dispute that the deceased-
Sahadev met with an accident and sustained grievous
injuries and succumbed to the injuries. In order to
prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle, petitioners have produced the copy
of FIR and Chargesheet marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P5.
Ex.P5 discloses that the accident was occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle.
16. Insofar as quantum of liability is concerned,
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has taken a
specific defence in the written statement contending
that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing
valid and effective driving licence to drive the
transport vehicle. On the contrary, petitioners have
produced the copy of driving licence of the driver of
the offending vehicle marked as Ex.P6 which discloses
that the driver of the offending vehicle was having
valid and effective driving licence to drive the
Transport Vehicle w.e.f. 11.08.2011 to 10.08.2014.
The Tribunal has over looked Ex.P6 and recorded a
finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was
holding only Light Motor Vehicle. As observed above,
from the perusal of Ex.P6, it discloses that the driver
was holding driving licence to drive Light Motor
Vehicle. The said Ex.P6 is not been denied by the
respondent No.2. Hence, the tribunal was not
justified in saddling the liability on the respondent
No.1. The offending vehicle is insured with respondent
No.2. The said policy was in force as on the date of
incident. Respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify
respondent No.1. Thus, respondents No.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioner.
17. Insofar as quantum of compensation is
concerned, the petitioners have not tendered any
evidence with regard to the income of the deceased
before the Tribunal. In the absence of proof of
income, the notional income of the deceased will have
to be taken as per the chart provided by the
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. In terms of
the chart, for the accident of the year 2012, the
notional income of the deceased will have to be taken
at Rs.6,500/- as against Rs.4,000/- per month taken
by the Tribunal. To the aforesaid amount, as the
deceased was aged 22 years, 40% of the said amount
has to be added on account of future prospects in
view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of
the Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157. Thus, the
monthly income comes to Rs.9,100/- (6500+2600).
Further, the deceased-Sahadev was a bachelor.
Hence 50% has to be deducted out of Rs.9,100/-
towards personnel expenses of the deceased which
comes to Rs.4,550/- (9,100 X 50% = 4,550).
Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased comes
to Rs.4,550/-. Taking into account the age of the
deceased which was 22 years at the time of accident,
multiplier of 18 has to be adopted as per the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, the
petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,82,800/-
(4,550 x 12 x 18) on account of loss of dependency as
against Rs.5,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
18. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC
130, each petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The
petitioners are 2 in number and hence the
compensation towards loss of consortium would be
Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2). In addition, the petitioners
are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral
expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards of loss of estate.
19. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.10,92,800/- as against Rs.6,21,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioners are entitled
for enhanced compensation of Rs.4,71,800/- with
interest at the rate 6% per annum, from the date of
petition, till its realization.
20. In view of the above discussion, I proceed
to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal filed by the respondent
No.1 - owner is allowed.
ii. The Cross-Objection filed by the
petitioners is allowed in part.
iii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal dated
31.12.2013 is modified.
iv. The respondents No.1 and 2, being
the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle are jointly and
severally liable to pay the
compensation.
v. The petitioners are entitled to an
enhanced compensation of
Rs.4,71,800/- along with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of
realization.
vi. Respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before the
Tribunal within a period of eight
weeks from date of the receipt of
certified copy of this judgment.
SD/-
JUDGE
GRD
