Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co.,Ltd vs Smt G Symalamma on 7 August, 2024

Author: H.T. Narendra Prasad

Bench: H.T. Narendra Prasad

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2024:KHC:31342
                                                            MFA No. 2595 of 2018
                                                        C/W MFA No. 2900 of 2018



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2595 OF 2018 (MV)
                                                 C/W
                      MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2900 OF 2018(MV)


                      IN MFA 2595/2018
                      BETWEEN:
                      UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.,LTD
                      NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX
                      K R FORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560002
                      REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER
                      R.O 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN
                      HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:
                      1. SMT G SYMALAMMA
Digitally signed by
                         W/O LATE G KRISHNA REDDY
HEMALATHA A              AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA             2.    G PRASANNA KUMARA REDDY
                            S/O LATE G KRISHNA REDDY
                            AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

                      3.    G PRAVEENA KUMARA REDDY
                            S/O LATE G KRISHNA REDDY
                            AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.

                      4.    GANGI REDDY
                            S/O LATE K NARP REDDY
                            AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
                            ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1/143
                           -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC:31342
                                    MFA No. 2595 of 2018
                                C/W MFA No. 2900 of 2018



     BAKKASAMPALL MAIN ROAD
     BAKKASAMPALLI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
     ANDHRA PRADESH PIN-515123.

5.   MR NAGARAJU B S
     S/O SHESHAPPA
     MAJOR, R/AT NO 6 WARD NO 9
     NEAR PETROL BUNK, CHANDAPURA
     MAIN ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK
     BENGALURU- 560081560081
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4:
NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
V/O DATED: 25.04.2024)
      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.11.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.3519/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST
ACMM    &   23RD   ADDITIONAL    SMALL     CAUSE    JUDGE,
BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,24,600/-
WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

IN MFA 2900/2018
BETWEEN:


1.   SMT G SYMALAMMA
     W/O LATE G KRISHNA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

2.   G PRASANNA KUMARA REDDY
     S/O LATE G KRISHNA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

3.   G PRAVEENA KUMARA REDDY
     S/O LATE G KRISHNA REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
                            -3-
                                          NC: 2024:KHC:31342
                                     MFA No. 2595 of 2018
                                 C/W MFA No. 2900 of 2018



4.   GANGI REDDY
     S/O LATE K NARP REDDY
     AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
     ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.1/143
     BAKKASAMPALL MAIN ROAD
     BAKKASAMPALLI, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
     ANDHRA PRADESH PIN-515123.
                                              ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.GURDEVA PRASAD K.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.,LTD
     NO.40, LAKSHMI COMPLEX
     K R FORT ROAD, BANGALORE-560002
     BY ITS MANAGER

2.   MR NAGARAJU B S
     S/O SHESHAPPA
     MAJOR, R/AT NO 6 WARD NO 9
     NEAR PETROL BUNK, CHANDAPURA
     MAIN ROAD, ANEKAL TALUK
     BENGALURU- 560081560081
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED: 02.11.2022)

       THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:07.11.2017
PASSED IN MVC NO.3519/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE 21ST
ACMM     &   23RD   ADDITIONAL    SMALL     CAUSE    JUDGE,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION        AND   SEEKING     ENHANCEMENT        OF
COMPENSATION.
                               -4-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:31342
                                         MFA No. 2595 of 2018
                                     C/W MFA No. 2900 of 2018



     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD


                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. MFA No.2595/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company

and MFA No.2900/2018 is filed by the claimant under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act') being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.11.2017

passed by the XXI ACMM and XXIII ASCJ, Bengaluru. in MVC

No.3519/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated

are that on 12.05.2016 at about 06.30 p.m, the deceased

G.Krishna Reddy was walking on the extreme left side of the

ring road, Badrappa Layout flyover, Hebbal, Bengaluru. At that

time, the driver of Eicher Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-

51-C-3988 drove the same with high speed and in a rash and

negligent manner so as to endangering to human life and

dashed against the deceased. As a result of the aforesaid

accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and

succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital.

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of

the Act seeking compensation for the death of the

deceased along with interest.

4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

denying the averments made in the claim petition. The

respondent No.2, despite service of notice, did not appear

before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter, recorded

the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case,

examined claimant No.1 as PW-1, and got exhibited

documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On behalf of

respondents, two witnesses were examined as RW-1 and

RW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to

Ex.R4. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment,

inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained

injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal

further held that the claimants are entitled to a

compensation of Rs.11,24,600/- along with interest at the

rate of 8% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to

deposit the compensation amount along with interest.

Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has

raised the following counter-contentions:

a) Firstly, the offending vehicle with registration number

KA-51-C-3988 was falsely implicated in the accident. The

claimants colluded with the police and lodged a false

complaint. The accident occurred on 12.05.2016, at about

6.30 p.m. Claimant No.2, Prasanna Kumar Reddy, filed the

complaint on 13.05.2016, mentioning the vehicle number

as 'unknown'. Based on this complaint, an FIR was

registered as per Ex.P1, which also shows the vehicle

number as 'unknown'. Even in Ex.P7, the vehicle is

referred to as 'unknown'. It is contended that the vehicle

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

number was mentioned for the first time in the charge

sheet. The Investigating Officer has been examined as

RW-1. In her evidence, she testified that the driver of the

alleged offending vehicle surrendered to the police on

13.05.2016 at 01.00 p.m. and admitted to the accident.

However, in the statement recorded by the Police, the

driver claimed to have surrendered in the morning,

contradicting the evidence of RW-1. This inconsistency has

led to the submission that the police colluded with the

claimants and falsely implicated the offending vehicle in

the accident.

b) Secondly, as per Ex.P4-IMV Report, the inspection

was conducted on 14.05.2016 at 6:30 a.m. It is unusual

for the police to conduct inspection at such an early hour.

This raises suspicions and it appears that the police, the

owner of the alleged offending vehicle and the claimants

have colluded to make a false claim. He further contended

that the Tribunal only on the basis of the charge sheet has

held that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

in causing the accident. In support of his contention, he

has relied upon the judgment in the case of MATAJI BEWA

AND OTHERS vs. HEMANTA KUMAR JENA AND ANOTHERS

(1994 ACJ 303).

c) Thirdly, even for the sake of argument, assuming

that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident,

unless it is proved that the driver of the offending vehicle

was negligent, the liability cannot be fixed on Insurance

Company. In support of his contention, he has relied upon

the judgment in the case of LACHOO RAM AND ORS.

Vs.HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. (2014 AIR SCW

1081).

d) Fourthly, in respect of the quantum of compensation,

claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the major sons and they are not

depending upon the income of the deceased. However, the

Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4th of the income of the

deceased towards personal expense.

e) Lastly, in light of the Division Bench decision of this

Court in the case of MS.JOYEETA BOSE AND OTHERS -

V- VENKATESHAN.V AND OTHERS (MFA 5896/2018

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

AND CONNECTED MATTERS DISPOSED OF ON

24.8.2020), the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal

at 8% p.a. on the compensation amount is on the higher

side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company

by dismissing the appeal filed by the claimants.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

claimants has raised the following contentions:

a) Firstly, the accident occurred on 12.05.2016. As a

result, one Krishna Reddy succumbed to his injuries while

being transported to the hospital. The complainant was

not an eyewitness to the incident. Following the accident,

the driver of the offending vehicle fled with the vehicle,

without stopping or allowing anyone to note down the

vehicle's registration number. Claimant No.f2 lodged a

complaint on 13.05.2016 in the morning, reporting the

vehicle as unknown. Consequently, an FIR was registered

based on this complaint. Therefore, simply because the

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

FIR was registered as an unknown vehicle, it cannot be

argued that the offending vehicle was implicated in the

accident.

b) Secondly, on 13.05.2016, the driver of the offending

vehicle himself surrendered before the Police and he has

admitted that since at the spot of the accident, public

gathered and because of that, he ran away and thereafter,

surrendered before the Police. The statement of the driver

of the offending vehicle reveals that he surrendered to the

Police in the morning, however, the exact timing of the

surrender was not mentioned. The Investigating Officer,

during cross-examination has stated that the driver of the

offending vehicle surrendered before the Police on

13.05.2016 at 01.00 O' clock. Therefore, the omission of

the time in the statement of driver recorded by the Police,

will not vitiate the police investigation. He further

submitted that after a thorough investigation, the Police

filed the charge sheet. The Investigating Officer was

examined as RW-1 and the Police, along with the charge

sheet, furnished the statement of driver of the offending

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

vehicle and he has admitted the accident. The admission

of the driver of the vehicle becomes a piece of substantive

evidence. Considering this aspect, the Tribunal has rightly

held that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-

51-C-3988 was involved in the accident. He further

submitted that the Tribunal also considering the evidence

of PW-1, RW-1, FIR, Sketch, Spot Mahazar, IMV Report

and charge sheet has come to the conclusion that the

driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the

accident.

c) Thirdly, in respect of the quantum, the claimants

assert that the deceased was aged about 50 years at the

time of the accident and had a monthly income of

Rs.10,000/- as a Coolie. However, the assessment of

income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- by the Tribunal is

unjustified and erroneous.

d) Fourthly, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of MAGMA GENERAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. -V- NANU RAM [2018 ACJ

2782], each of the claimants is entitled to compensation

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

of Rs.40,000/- under the head of 'loss of love and affection

and consortium'.

e) Fifthly, the claimants are depending upon the income

of the deceased and they are residing with their parents in

the same residence. To that effect, they produced ration

car as per Ex.P8.

f) Lastly, considering the age and avocation of the

deceased, the overall compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is inadequate and on the lower side.

With the above contentions, the learned counsel

sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimant by

dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal and the

original records.

REG:NEGLIGENCE

9. The case of the claimant is that on 12.05.2016 at

about 06.30 p.m, the deceased G.Krishna Reddy was walking

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

on the extreme left side of the ring road, Badrappa Layout

flyover, Hebbal, Bengaluru. At that time, the driver of Eicher

Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-51-C-3988 drove the same

with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner so as to

endangering to human life and dashed against the deceased.

As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained

grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way

to the Hospital. To prove the case of the claimants,

claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and reiterated

the statement made in the claim petition.

10. Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition

before the Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much

below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in

the civil case. No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must

be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can

arrive or decide things necessary to decide for awarding

compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take or

to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After all it is a

summary enquiry and it is the legislation for the welfare of

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

the Society. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act

are not akin to the proceedings under civil rules. Hence,

strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in

this regard. In the case of MANGLA RAM -v- ORIENTAL

INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (2018) 5 SCC 656,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow:

"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

11. The accident occurred on 12.05.2016 at about 06:30

p.m. Claimant No.2, son of the deceased, lodged a

complaint on 13.05.2016 in the morning against an

unknown vehicle. Immediately, an FIR was also registered

as per Ex.P1 against the unknown vehicle. The statement

of the driver of the offending vehicle has been recorded

and he has admitted that after the accident, he did not

stop the vehicle and fled the scene along with the

offending vehicle and he also admitted that he

surrendered before the Police on 13.05.2016 in the

morning. His statement has been produced as Ex.R1.

12. The Police, after a thorough investigation, filed a

charge sheet. The Investigating Officer was examined as

RW-1 and clearly deposed that while drawing the Mahazar,

one Manjunath gave a statement about the involvement of

the offending vehicle. After that, she conducted a

thorough investigation and filed the charge sheet. The

statement of Manjunath has been produced as Ex.R3.

Manjunath, who is said to be an eyewitness has

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

categorically stated that immediately after the accident,

the driver of the offending vehicle fled the scene along

with the vehicle. On the basis of this record, including IMV

report, FIR, Spot Mahazar, Charge sheet, the Tribunal has

rightly come to the conclusion that the Bus bearing

Registration No. KA-51-C-3988 was involved in the

accident. The accident occurred due to the negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

13. The submission of the counsel for the Insurance

Company that the Police conducted the inspection of the

vehicle and prepared the IMV report in the early morning,

which is unusual. However, the law does not prohibit the

inspection of a vehicle by an RTO Officer during early

morning hours. Even the contention of the counsel for

Insurance Company that the Tribunal cannot rely on the

charge sheet and come to the conclusion that the

offending vehicle was involved in the accident, cannot be

accepted.

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

14. In this case, the Court has come to the conclusion

that the negligence of the Bus was not only based on the

charge sheet, but also the other documents and evidence

of the parties. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the

learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not

applicable to the case at hand.

15. One more contention raised by the learned counsel

for the Insurance Company is that mere involvement of

the Bus does not make it liable to pay compensation,

unless it is proved that the accident was caused by the

rash and negligent act of the Bus driver.

16. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has come to the

conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was

negligent in causing the accident, based on the statement

of the Investigating Officer and the driver's own

admission, has acknowledged his role in the accident.

Considering the evidence of the claimant including

complaint, charge sheet, FIR, IMV report, the Tribunal has

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

rightly come to the conclusion that the driver of the

offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident.

Therefore, there is no error in the finding recorded by the

Tribunal in respect of issue Nos.1 and 2, which were

decided in the affirmative.

REG:QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION

17. The claimants claim that deceased was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting

documents to substantiate their claim. In the absence of

proof of income, the notional income has to be assessed.

According to the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State

Legal Services Authority, for accidents occurred in the year

2016, the notional income of the deceased shall be taken

at Rs.9,500/- p.m. To the aforesaid income, 10% 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 'PRANAY SETHI' (supra). Thus, the monthly income

comes to Rs.10,450/-. The Tribunal after considering the

- 19 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

evidence of the parties, has held that the claimants are

depending upon the income of the deceased and rightly

deducted 1/4th of the income of the deceased towards

personal expenses and remaining amount has to be taken

as his contribution to the family. The deceased was aged

about 50 years at the time of the accident and multiplier

applicable to his age group is '13'. Thus, the claimants are

entitled to compensation of Rs.12,22,650/- (Rs.10,450

*12*13*3/4) on account of 'loss of dependency'.

18. In addition, the claimants are entitled to

compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of 'loss of

estate' and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of

'funeral expenses'. Claimant No.1, wife of the deceased is

entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head

of 'loss of spousal consortium'.

19. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in

the case of 'MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE' (supra),

claimant Nos.2 and 3, children of the deceased are entitled

- 20 -

NC: 2024:KHC:31342

for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of

'loss of parental consortium' and claimant No.4, father of

the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-

under the head of 'loss of filial consortium'.

20. Thus, the claimants are entitled to the following

compensation:

           Compensation under                  Amount in
             different Heads                     (Rs.)

        Loss of dependency                       12,22,650

        Funeral expenses                            15,000

        Loss of estate                              15,000

        Loss of spousal consortium                  40,000

        Loss of Parental consortium                 80,000

        Loss of Filial consortium                   40,000

                         Total                  14,12,650

21. In the result, the following order is passed: