Karnataka High Court
Branch Manager vs Renukamma W/O. Blappa on 12 September, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24987 OF 2013 (MV-)
C/W
MFA CROSS OBJ NO. 100120 OF 2014
IN MFA No.24987/2013
BETWEEN:
BRANCH MANAGER
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
SANMAN COMPLEX, ISLAMPUR
GANGAVATHI
ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
GANDHICHOWK, RAICHUR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A G JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O. BLAPPA
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. VENKATGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI
DIST: KOPPAL
2. HULIGEMMA D/O. BALAPPA
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: NIL
MINOR, R/BY HER MOTHER
RENUKAMMA W/O. BLAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. VENKATGIRI,
TQ: GANGAVATHI DIST: KOPPAL
3. MARUTI D/O. BALAPPA
-2-
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL
MINOR, R/BY HER MOTHER
RENUKAMMA W/O. BLAPPA AGE: 35 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. VENKATGIRI, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL
4. DYAMANNA S/O. BALAPPA
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. VENKATGIRI TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL
5. DEVAMMA W/O. DYAMANNA
AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. VENKATGIRI,
TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL
6. REHAMANASAB S/O. MOULASAB
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF T/T No.KA
37/T 3456 & KA 37/T 6155
R/O. VADDARAHATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI
7. ERAPPA RALIKOTTI S/O. AYYAPPA
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER OF
T/T NO KA 37/T 3456 & KA 37/T 6155
R/O. VADDARAHATTI, TQ: GANGAVATHI
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, REPTD. BY R1;
SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:10.09.2013, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.193/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MACT AT GANGAVATHI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.5,70,000/- WITH THE INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.
IN MFA CROB.NO.100120/2014
BETWEEN:
-3-
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
1. RENUKAMMA W/O. BALAPPA,
AGE 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. HULIGEMMA D/O. BALAPPA,
AGE 14 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
3. MARUTHI S/O. BALAPPA,
AGE 12 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
BOTH ARE MINORS, REPTD. BY
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E.
PETITIONER No.1 SMT. RENUKAMMA W/O. BALAPPA
4. DYAMANNA S/O. BALAPPA,
AGE 67 YEARS, OCC: NIL.
5. DEVAMMA W/O. DYAMANNA,
AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
ALL ARE R/O. VENKATAGIRI,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
...CROSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR CROSS-OBJECTORS)
AND:
1. REHAMANSAB S/O. MOULASAB,
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER OF TRACTOR AND
TRAILER BEARING No.KA-37/TA-3456 AND
KA-37/T-6155, R/O. VADDARAHATTI,
TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL.
2. ERAPPA RALIKOTTI S/O. AYYAPPA,
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS AND
OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER
BEARING No.KA-37/TA-3456 AND KA-37/T-6155,
R/O. VADDARAHATTI, TQ. GANGAVATHI,
DIST. KOPPAL.
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
SANMAN COMPLEX, ISLMANPUR,
GANGAVATHI, ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
-4-
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
GANDHI CHOWK, RAICHUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. A.G.JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS MFA CROB. IN MFA No.24987/2013 FILED UNDER ORDER
41 RULE 22 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
10.09.2013 PASSED IN MVC No.193/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT GANGAVATHI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEAL & CROSS OBJECTIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the appellant counsel in MFA No.24987/2013
and also the counsel for the respondent-claimants.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants
before the tribunal is that, the deceased Balappa was met
with an accident when her husband and Tirupateppa i.e.
P.W.2 were standing by the side of the river bund and
driver of the drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner, as a result, he lost his conscious and immediately
he was taken to the hospital where he was taken
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
treatment and died on account of the injuries sustained
by him.
3. It is their claim that he was earning Rs.6,000/-
per month and due to the death, the claimants they lost
the earning member of the family. The Insurance company
took different defences in the written statement. The
claimant examined one witness and also the eyewitness to
the incident i.e. P.W.2 and respondents have examined
one witness as R.W.1 and also got marked documents at
Ex.R.1.
4. The tribunal after assessing both oral and
documentary evidence allowed the claim petition granting
compensation of Rs.5,70,000/- with 6% interest. Hence,
the present appeal is filed by the Insurance company and
also the claimants for enhancement of the compensation.
5. The main contention of the counsel appearing
for the Insurance company is that, the tribunal has failed
to take note of the evidence of P.W.2, who gave an
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
evidence before the Court that, he himself and the
deceased worked as coolies in order to load the sand and
also he categorically says that the tractor was used for
hire purpose and hence there is a clear violation of policy
conditions and the tractor was used for business and
Ex.R.1 policy speaks that the tractor was meant for
agricultural purpose and sand is not the agricultural
product by carrying the sand in the tractor-trailer and in
spite of it, the tribunal has fastened the liability on the
Insurance company. Learned counsel also would submits
that, in order to substantiate the said contention R.W.1 is
also examined before the tribunal and the tribunal has also
not considered the same.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would also submits that, at the time of the
accident the deceased as well as P.W.2 were standing by
the side of the river bund and though they were engaged
as coolies, the Court has to take note of the manner in
which the accident was taken place and the very
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
contention that, the vehicle was used for commercial
purpose has not been proved except examining R.W.1.
The counsel also would submits that, the accident was
taken place in the year 2012 and the tribunal has taken
only Rs.4,000/- as income and not given any future
prospectus and hence, it requires interference.
7. In reply to the arguments, the learned counsel
for the Insurance company would submits that, the
claimants themselves have pleaded the income of
Rs.6,000/- and when they have admitted the income,
higher income cannot be taken.
8. Having heard the respective counsel and also
on perusal of the material available on record, the point
that would arise for consideration of this Court are ;
(i) Whether the tribunal has committed an error in
fastening the liability on the Insurance
company?
(ii) Whether the award passed by the tribunal is
just and reasonable, and does it require any
interference at the hands of this Court?
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
9. Answer to Point No.1 : On perusal of the
material available on record, the case has been registered
against the driver of the tractor wherein, an allegation is
also made that, he drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and
also who was standing along with P.W.2. The police have
also investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet. P.W.1
is the wife of the deceased and she is not an eyewitness
and P.W.2 is an eyewitness according to the claimants and
he also says that, the driver of the tractor dashed against
the deceased, as a result he sustained injuries and he lost
his conscious. He was subjected to the cross-examination.
In the cross-examination he admits that, the tractor-trailer
involved in the accident it was loaded with sand. R.W.2 is
the owner and that day he himself and another along with
of the labourers and again says that third person Irappa
came later. Earlier he himself and Balappa were engaged
as labours. Respondent No.2 used to hire his tractor for
transporting sand. The counsel also would vehemently
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
contend that the vehicle was used for hire purpose and
Respondent No.2 used to hire his tractor for transporting
sand, but no evidence before the Court that to whom the
tractor was given for hire purpose on that day and apart
from that the accident was taken place, when the
deceased as well as P.W.2 were outside the tractor and
both of them were standing by the side of the river bund
and case is also registered against the driver of the tractor
that he was negligent at the time of driving the vehicle. He
went and dashed against the deceased. When such being
the case, the very contention of the Insurance company
that, vehicle was used for the hire purpose though P.W.2
says that it was used for hire purpose, but the same was
given to whom for hire purpose nothing is stated, except
the stray sentence of Respondent No.2 used hire his
tractor for transportation of sand and the Court has to
take note of the fact when the accident was taken place
the deceased was outside the tractor and the driver of the
tractor went and dashed against him and when such being
- 10 -
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
the case, the very contention of the Insurance company
cannot be accepted, and hence, I do not find any force in
the contention of the counsel appearing for the Insurance
company that there was a violation of the policy conditions
and the company is not liable and the tribunal rightly
fastened the liability on the Insurance company and
hence, I answer point No.1 as negative.
10. Answer to Point No.2 : The main contention
of the claimant before the Court is that, he was working as
loader and he was drawing salary of Rs.4,000/- per month
and admittedly the accident was taken place in the year
2012 and the tribunal also taken the income of Rs.4,000/-
and while calculating the loss of dependency not added
future prospectus and P.M. report discloses the age of the
deceased as 36 years and hence, the relevant multiplier
applicable is '15'. The claimants are five in numbers and
hence, 1/4tth has to be deducted. Taking the income as
Rs.6,000/- since they have admitted in their evidence
itself that, the deceased income was Rs.6,000/- and even
- 11 -
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
though the notional income for the said period is
Rs.6,500/- Court has to take note of the admission given
by the claimant and also pleaded in the petition and
having taken the income as Rs.6,000/- and adding 40%, it
comes to Rs.8,400/- and after deducting 1/4th, it comes to
Rs.6,300/-X12X15, it comes to Rs.11,34,000/-. The
claimants are the wife, children and parents and they are
also entitle for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each under the
head of consortium and love and affection and hence, they
are entitle for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The claimants
are also entitle for an amount of Rs.33,000/- under the
head of loss of estate and funeral expenses. In all the
claimants are entitle for an amount of Rs.13,67,000/-
11. Answer to Point No.3 : In view of the
discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal filed by the Insurance company is
dismissed.
- 12 -
MFA No. 24987 of 2013
C/W MFA.CROB No. 100120 of 2014
The Cross objections filed by the claimants is allowed
in part.
The Judgment and award dated 10.09.2013 passed
in MVC No.193/2012 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT,
at Gangavathi, is modified. In total the claimants are
entitle for compensation of Rs.13,67,000/- with 6%
interest.
The Insurance company is directed to pay remaining
compensation amount to the claimants, within six weeks
from today.
Registry is directed to send back the TCR if any to
the concerned trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SVH
