Karnataka High Court
Sbi General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Salima Begum And Ors on 21 February, 2024
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1701-DB
MFA No. 202961 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202961 OF 2023 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SBI, COMPLEX, COURT ROAD,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SALIMA BEGUM
W/O MAHEBOOB SAB,
Digitally signed by AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH 2. BABY FATIMA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA D/O MAHEBOOB SAB,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3. TASLEEM BEGUM
D/O MAHEBOOB SAB,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
4. SHOHEB AHMED
S/O MAHEBOOB SAB,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
5. MOHAMMED IRFAN
S/O MAHEBOOB SAB,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1701-DB
MFA No. 202961 of 2023
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF 8-15444/69,
FILTER BED ROAD,
TAJ NAGAR, MUSLIM COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585102.
6. ANILKUMAR
S/O GOUDAPPA GOUD PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF MARUTI
ERITIGA CAR BEARING
REG.NO.KA-05/NB/5858,
RESIDENT OF NO.18/1 AND 18/2
SHREE LAXMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA,
15TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,
DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE.
NOW AT BIDDAPUR COLONY,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5
NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 11.05.2023, IN MVC
NO.980/2021 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND MACT KALABURAGI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1701-DB
MFA No. 202961 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, learned counsel
who is representing respondent Nos.1 to 5. Issuance of
notice to respondent No.6 stood dispensed with.
2. Challenging the validity and the legality of the
order that is rendered by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kalaburagi in MVC No.980/2021 dated
11.05.2023 the insurance company against whom liability is
fastened is before this Court with a contention that the
insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant stressed and
based his submissions on two grounds. Firstly that the
death of the deceased-Maheboob Sab (hereinafter referred to
as 'the deceased' for brevity) is not due to the injuries
sustained through a road traffic accident but due to COVID.
Secondly that the age of the deceased was wrongly assessed
by the Tribunal and thereby awarded excessive sum as
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1701-DB
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the doctor who examined the deceased issued Ex.P7/death
certificate wherein it is mentioned that deceased was tested
COVID positive. Learned counsel states that by the contents
of Ex.P7 thus it is clear that the deceased died due to COVID
and therefore the Tribunal ought not to have ordered the
appellant-insurance company to pay compensation.
5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.1 to 5-claimants submits that due to the
injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on
03.05.2021, the deceased was shifted to hospital for
treatment and he underwent surgery also. But he
succumbed to the injuries later. Learned counsel submits
that due to injuries sustained the deceased lost his life and
same is evident as per the material that is brought on record
by the claimants. Learned counsel also contends that the
nature of injuries sustained and that those injuries turned
fatal is also established by all the evidence and therefore the
Tribunal has rightly fastened liability and ordered insurance
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1701-DB
company to pay compensation and therefore the award of
the Tribunal needs no interference.
6. The case of respondent Nos.1 to 5-claimants is
that on 03.05.2021 the deceased was proceeding in a tum-
tum auto rickshaw to attend centering work at Ranaspeer
Darga and at that time an Eritiga Car bearing Reg. No.KA-
05/NB-5858 which was driven by its driver at a high speed
and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said
tum-tum vehicle, due to which the deceased sustained
grievous injuries. It is also their version that immediately the
deceased was shifted to Dr.Shah Hospital, Kalaburagi and
thereafter to S. P. Institute of Neurosciences, Solapur, where
he underwent surgery and died during the course of
treatment.
7. The fact that on 03.05.2021 the Eritiga Car
bearing Reg. No.KA-05/NB-5858 was involved in the
accident is established by respondent Nos.1 to 5-claimants
by producing Ex.P1, which is certified copy of FIR and Ex.P5
which is certified copy of charge-sheet. It is not in dispute
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1701-DB
that as the deceased sustained injuries due to the accident
he was shifted immediately from the place of accident to the
Hospital for treatment. The entire case of the claimants is
that the deceased while proceeding in an auto rickshaw to
attend centering work met with an accident. The contents of
Exs.P16 and 17 death summary reveals that the deceased
was tested COVID negative. Ex.P9 MLC notice which was
sent on 03.05.2021 to the jurisdictional police does not
reveal that the deceased was found with or complained any
other ailments except the injuries sustained. When the
accident occurred on 03.05.2021, the deceased, during the
course of treatment died on 16.05.2021 i.e., after the period
of 12 days. Ex.P7/death certificate was issued on the very
next day i.e. on 17.05.2021. Therefore, it cannot be ruled
out that the deceased might have contacted with infection
and would have tested COVID positive while undergoing
treatment in the Hospital. The reason for which the
deceased was shifted to Hospital is that he sustained
injuries due to the accident and that those injuries were
grievous in nature. Therefore, it cannot be held that the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1701-DB
reason for death of the deceased is due to COVID infection.
Hence, the plea taken by the insurance company in this
regard cannot be appreciated.
8. Coming to the quantum that is awarded as
compensation, as per the submission of the learned counsel
for the appellant the deceased was aged about 52 years by
the date of the accident and therefore for computing loss of
dependency, appropriate multiplier to be applied is '11' but
not '13'. Learned counsel states that by applying multiplier
'13', the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.20,84,056/- under
the head loss of dependency. However, the contents of
Ex.P17 death summary whose genuineness is not in dispute
reveals that the deceased was aged 50 years by the time of
accident. No material by way of evidence is brought on
record by the appellant herein before the Tribunal to
establish his version that the deceased was aged 52 years by
the date of the accident. Therefore, the appellant fails on this
count also.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:1701-DB
9. Thus, in the light of the discussion that went on
supra, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal
has lack of merits. Resultantly the appeal stands dismissed.
The amount in deposit if any, be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SDU
CT: CS
