Karnataka High Court
Shriram General Ins. Co. Ltd vs Gangamma W/O Ninganagouda Patil @ ... on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
MFA No. 25503 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO.25503 OF 2011(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.,
E-8, EPIP, RIICO, SITAPUR,
JAIPUR, RAJASTAN - 302022.
REP. BY AUTHROIZED SIGNATORY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GANGAMMA,
W/O NINGANAGOUDA PATIL @ MALIPATIL,
AGE: 48 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. MALLIKARJUN
S/O NINGANAGOUDA PATIL @ MALIPATIL,
AGE: 35 YRS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
3. NAGARATNA,
W/O NAGARAJ IKKERE,
AGE: 29 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
4. RENUKA,
W/O MALLAPPA MALLASHETTI,
AGE: 27 YRS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL ARE R/O KAKKUR,
TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.
5. HANAMAPPA @ HANAMANTAPPA,
S/O BALADANDEPPA @ DANDEPPA HOSUR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O NAREGAL, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
MFA No. 25503 of 2011
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4;
R1 - DECEASED [R2 - R4 ARE TREATED AS LR's OF
DECEASED R1 AND R5 - DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV. ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.07.2011 PASSED IN
MVC.NO.31/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND
MEMBER MACT, GADAG. AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
RS.6,45,000/- WITH COSTS AND SIMPLE INTEREST AT 6% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF THIS PETITION TILL THE DATE OF
REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated
07.07.2011 passed by District Judge and MACT,
Gadag in MVC.no.31/2010, this appeal is filed.
2. Brief facts as stated are that on
11.12.2009 Ninganagouda Fakkiragouda Patil @
Malipatil was traveling in Auto bearing registration
no.KA-26/6736, when its driver was driving it rash
and negligent manner and as a result it toppled
down. Ninganagouda Fakkiragouda Patil @ Malipatil
sustained severe fatal injuries and died.
MFA No. 25503 of 2011
3. Alleging loss of dependency on account
of his untimely death, his wife and three children
filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V Act,
against owner and insurer of Auto.
4. Upon service of notice, only insurer
contested claim petition while owner was placed
ex-parte. In its objection, insurer contended that
driver was not holding effective driving licence and
claim petition was excessive etc.
5. Thereafter, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence, wherein claimant no.1 was
examine as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked.
There was no rebuttal evidence.
6. On consideration, tribunal held accident
had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
Auto driver, claimants were entitled for
compensation and insurer was liable to pay same.
Thus, total compensation assessed was
Rs.6,45,000/-.
MFA No. 25503 of 2011
7. Assailing said award, insurer is in
appeal.
8. Sri. Nagaraj C Kollori, learned counsel
for appellant - insurer at outset submitted that
insofar as liability sole ground that driver of Auto
though possessed Driving Licence to drive LMV, did
not have transport endorsement while driving
passenger auto, would not hold good in view of
authoritative pronouncement by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mukund Dewangan v/s Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2017 (14) SCC
663.
9. However insofar as quantum of
compensation, it was submitted that deduction of
only 1/4 t h towards personal expenses would not be
justified and therefore, seeks reduction.
10. Learned counsel for claimants sought to
sustain award.
MFA No. 25503 of 2011
11. Admittedly, claimants are wife and three
children. As per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in National Insurance Co. Ltd., v/s Pranay
Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 68,
deduction towards personal expenses where
number of dependants is 4 to 6 would be 1/4 t h .
Therefore, even challenge on quantum would not
be sustainable. Consequently, there is no merit in
appeal.
12. Hence following:
O R D E R
i. Appeal of insurer is dismissed.
ii. Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to tribunal for dispersal.
iii. Balance compensation if any to be
deposited within six weeks.
SD/-
JUDGE
GRD
