Karnataka High Court
Shanthabeeramma @ Shanthaveeramma vs Shivanna on 5 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:735
MFA No. 8973 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 8973 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTHABEERAMMA @ SHANTHAVEERAMMA
W/O GURULINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/A HOSAHALLI, HIRIYUR TALUK
NOW R/A BEJJIHALLI VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK
2. G AMBIKA
W/O GURUMURTHY, D/O LATE GURULINGAPPA
R/A HOSAHALLI, HIRIYUR TALUK
NOW R/A BEJJIHALLI VILLAGE
SIRA TALUK
3. SHANTHAKUMARA
S/O LATE GURULINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
R/A HOSAHALLI, HIRIYUR TALUK
NOW R/A BEJJIHALLI VILLAGE
SIRA TALUK ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI, ADV.)
Digitally signed by MALA AND:
KN
Location: HIGH COURT 1. SHIVANNA
OF KARNATAKA S/O MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/O C/O MANJUNATHA BUILDING
THIRUPALYA, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.60-2C, BENGALURU DISTRICT
CHANDAPURA, BENGALURU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 SERVED AS PER R(J) MEMO NO.126/2021
DATED 25.11.2021)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:735
MFA No. 8973 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 17.08.2019,
PASSED IN MVC NO.191/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this appeal, the petitioners have challenged
the judgment and award dated 17.08.2019 in
M.V.C.No.191/2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and Addl. M.A.C.T., Sira ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties
shall be referred to as per their status before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, on 28.07.2017 at
about 10:00 pm, the husband of 1st petitioner, father
of petitioners No.2 and 3, by name Gurulingappa,
the deceased, while walking on the left side of the
road in front of M.T.R. Food Factory, where he was
working, hit by a motor cycle bearing
NC: 2024:KHC:735
Reg.No.KA-51/EV-1884 on his back, injuring him.
He was treated at Sparsha Hospital, Bommasandra.
In spite of it, he succumbed to death. Petitioners
being the dependants have approached the Tribunal
for grant of compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with
12% interest p.a. Claim was opposed by the
Insurance Company of the motor cycle. The Tribunal
after taking the evidence, by the impugned
judgment awarded compensation of Rs.13,81,000/-
with 7% interest p.a. Pleading inadequacy and
seeking enhancement, the petitioners have filed this
appeal on various grounds.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Shripad. V.
Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Sri. L. Sreekanta Rao, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that the deceased was working in the
M.T.R. Food Factory, earning more than Rs.12,000/-
NC: 2024:KHC:735
per month as a salary, in addition, he was doing
other part-time jobs and earning not less than
Rs.25,000/- per month in all; but the Tribunal has
taken the income at Rs.9,000/- which is on the lower
side; compensation under conventional heads is
inadequately awarded and he sought for
enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the Tribunal has
correctly considered the income of the deceased,
Ex.P14/salary slips clearly indicate that the highest
salary drawn was Rs.11,624/- and the lowest salary
drawn was Rs.8,164/-, for this reason, the Tribunal
has correctly assessed the income at Rs.9,000/-;
compensation under conventional heads, so also the
total compensation are properly awarded. It is
further contended that the rate of interest awarded
at 7% p.a. is on the higher side and he sought for
modification of interest to 6% p.a. It is also
NC: 2024:KHC:735
contended that the rider of the motor cycle did not
possess valid driving licence, therefore the Insurance
Company has no liability to pay the compensation,
respondent No.1 alone has to pay the compensation
which does not call for interference and he supported
the impugned judgment.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both sides and also perused
the materials on record.
8. There is no dispute as to the accident, cause
of the accident, injuries sustained and death of the
deceased on account of accidental injuries.
Petitioners are wife and children of the deceased.
2nd petitioner is a married daughter and she cannot
be treated as a dependant. Though 3rd petitioner
being aged 18 years, he is still a young person and
he can be treated as a dependant. Hence,
petitioners No.1 and 3 can only be treated as
dependants.
NC: 2024:KHC:735
9. The petitioner is said to be working in M.T.R.
Food Factory. Though he claims that he was earning
Rs.25,000/-, income will be taken by relying upon
his salary certificate at Ex.P14 as gross salary minus
(-) professional tax. The Tribunal has taken the
income at Rs.9,000/-, added 30% future prospects,
applied correct multiplier and assessed the loss of
dependency correctly. Compensation assessed
under conventional heads is proper and does not
require any interference. Hence, the award of
compensation is just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
10. As regards liability is concerned, the
material on record did point out that the rider of
motor cycle i.e., respondent No.1 did not possess
valid driving licence on the date of accident. Policy
of insurance is though valid, it is a clear case of
violation of terms and conditions of the policy and
the Insurance Company can avoid its liability.
NC: 2024:KHC:735
11. In Pappu and Others -Vs.- Vinod Kumar
Lamba and Another1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that in a case of the rider or the driver did not
possess driving licence, it is a case of pay and
recovery. The said principles are aptly applicable to
the facts of this case. Respondent No.1 is the
owner-cum-rider of the motor cycle. The petitioners
cannot be driven to go against the owner of the
motor cycle. Hence, the Insurance Company has to
pay the compensation and to recover it from the
owner of the motor cycle in the same proceedings.
12. As regards rate of interest is concerned,
the Tribunal has exercised its discretion in granting
7% interest. Since the Insurance Company has not
filed any appeal and also rate of interest at 6% or
7% would not make much difference, it is not proper
to interfere with the discretion of the Tribunal.
AIR 2018 SC 502
NC: 2024:KHC:735
Accordingly, the appeal merits consideration, in the
result, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) Impugned judgment is modified and
compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is confirmed.
iii) Insurance Company is directed to
satisfy the award within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this judgment and
permitted to recover it from the
owner of the motor cycle in the same
proceedings.
iv) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records forthwith.
SD/-
JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
