Karnataka High Court
Sri Sagayaraju vs Sri Ajaz Ahmed on 6 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44233
MFA No. 6740 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6740 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SAGAYARAJU,
S/O LATE RAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. SMT. RAZEENA,
D/O LATE RAJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENT AT NO.513,
5TH CROSS, ARUNDATHINAGAR,
BEHIND VIDHYA SAGAR SCHOOL,
CHANDRA LAY-OUT,
BANGALORE - 560 039.
NOTE: THE CLAIMANT NO.2 WAS
Digitally signed by MALA UNMARRIED AND SHE WAS DIED,
KN NO LEGAL HEIRS EXCEPT APPELLANTS.
Location: HIGH COURT HENCE, SHE WAS NOT IMPLEADED AS A
OF KARNATAKA PARTY TO THIS PROCEEDINGS.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI NAIK RAMACHANDRA RAMA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI AJAZ AHMED,
R/AT NO. 56/7, OPPOSITE JALLY FACTORY,
O. B. HALLI, BANGALORE - 560 064.
2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
NO. 40, "LAXAMI COMPLEX",
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44233
MFA No. 6740 of 2014
K. R. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 002,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
3. SRI ZAHEER PASHA,
S/O IQBAL PASHA,
R/AT NO. 42, 2ND CROSS,
PADARAYANAPURA,
HOSAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 026.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
***
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 14.07.2014 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1999/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, petitioners have challenged the judgment
and award dated 14.07.2014 passed in MVC No.1999/2012 by
the XX Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-
22) ('the Tribunal' in short)
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.
NC: 2023:KHC:44233
3. The brief facts of the case are, on 12.12.2010 at
about 12.15pm, when mother of the petitioners Smt. Rajamma,
the deceased, was walking near BCC Layout bus stop, Opposite
Dry Cleaners Shop, Chandra Layout, Maruthi Car bearing
Registration No.KA-05 M-966 hit against the deceased injuring
her. She was treated at Sagar Nursing Home and Victoria
hospital, but she succumbed to injuries. Petitioners being
dependants have sought for award of Rs.5 lakhs before the
Tribunal. The respondents have opposed the claim. The
Tribunal after taking evidence, awarded global compensation in
a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners to be paid by
respondent Nos.1 & 3 and dismissed the claim petition as
against respondent No.2 - Insurance company. Aggrieved by
the same petitioners have filed this appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard arguments of learned counsel Sri Naik
Ramachandra Rama appearing on behalf of petitioners and
learned counsel Sri B.A. Ramakrishna, appearing on behalf of
Insurance company.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
petitioners that the petitioners are fully dependant on the
deceased, Tribunal has not considered their dependency, under
NC: 2023:KHC:44233
conventional heads not awarded just compensation and sought
for enhancement. It is further contended that on the date of
accident there is valid insurance policy, but the alleged breach
is that respondent No.1 sold the vehicle in favour of respondent
No.3 and executed necessary documents, but the respondent
No.3 has not changed the RC. Tribunal held that the Insurance
company is not liable to pay the compensation and he sought
fastening of liability against the Insurance company.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance company
has contended that though the policy issued in favour of
respondent No.1, he sold the car in favour of respondent No.3,
all the documents are executed, but change of RC not effected.
In view of the same, the Insurance company is not liable to pay
any compensation and the Tribunal rightly recorded its finding
and he supported the impugned judgment.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed by the learned counsel for both the
parties and perused the material on record.
8. Material on record did point out that there was an
accident on 12.12.2010 at about 12.15pm involving the
deceased and Maruthi Car bearing Registration No. KA-05 M-
NC: 2023:KHC:44233
966 the deceased was injured, resulting her death. The
petitioners are aged 45 years, 43 years and 41 years
respectively as on the date of accident. They are married,
settled with their own dependant family. The argument of the
learned counsel for petitioner is not persuasive to accept that
the petitioners are dependants of the deceased. They being
children are entitled for compensation towards loss of estate,
loss of love and affection, funeral expenses under conventional
heads. Accordingly the compensation has to be assessed.
9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal
without considering the above aspects awarded a global
compensation of Rs.50,000/-. For the reason of non transfer of
the car by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent
No.3, dismissed the claim against the Insurance company. As
on the date of accident, insurance stands in the name of
respondent No.1, vehicle was not transferred in the name of
respondent No.3, so the 1st respondent shall be treated as RC
owner and the policy was in force. So Insurance company
cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation.
10. The only issue is that the driver of the car did hold
valid driving license as on the date of accident? For this answer
NC: 2023:KHC:44233
is no. If the driver of the car did not hold the valid driving
license, under Section 149(2) of the MV Act, the Insurance
company can avoid its liability, but at the same time the
petitioners cannot be driven to recover the compensation from
respondent Nos.1 & 3. Hence, it is case for pay and recovery.
11. As regards assessment of compensation is
concerned, PM report at Ex.P7 would point out the age of the
deceased at 65 years, but in the cross-examination PW1 admits
that in the year 2002 the age of the deceased was 60 years
and the accident is of the year 2010, then the age of the
deceased comes to 68 years. For the age of 68 years the
multiplier applicable is '5'. In the year 2010 a person with no
proof of income would earn not less than Rs.5,500/-. Hence,
the notional income of the deceased is taken at Rs.5,500/- per
month. Since the deceased is aged 68 years, 50% has to be
deducted towards her personal expenses. Then the
multiplicand would be Rs.2,750/- X 12 X 5 = Rs.1,65,000/-,
30% of it is to be awarded towards loss of estate, which would
be Rs.49,500/-. Towards loss of love and affection to all the
petitioners, together a sum of Rs.50,000/-, towards funeral
expenses a sum of Rs.15,000/- has to be assessed In view of
NC: 2023:KHC:44233
the law laid down in SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED vs BHAGAT SINGH RAWAT AND OTHERS, in Civil
Appeal Nos. 2410-2412 of 2023 DD 27.03.2023, 10% has to be
added for every three years, since the accident is of the year
2012, for 11 years appreciation of 30% comes to Rs.19,500/-.
The total compensation under conventional head comes to
Rs.84,500/-. Towards loss of estate Rs.49,500/-. In all the
petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- as against
Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, thereby enhancement of
Rs.84,000/-, which is just compensation that the petitioners
are entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Hence, appeal merits consideration. In the result, the following
order:
ORDER
(1) Appeal is allowed in part.;
(2) The impugned judgment and award is modified.;
(3) The petitioners are entitled to total compensation
of Rs.1,34,000/- as against Rs.50,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal with interest @ 6% per annum
from the date of petition till realization.;
NC: 2023:KHC:44233
(4) The Insurance company is directed to deposit the
compensation within eight weeks from the date
of receipt of the copy of this order and further it
is at liberty to recover the same from the owner
of the Car in the same proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VK
