Karnataka High Court
Ramegowda M.N vs Annappa on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
MFA No. 6448 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2443 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MFA NO. 6448 OF 2017 C/W
MFA NO. 2443 OF 2017 (MV-D)
IN MFA NO. 6448/2017
BETWEEN:
1. RAMEGOWDA M.N.
S/O. NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2. POORNIMA
W/O. RAMEGOWDA M.N.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. LOKESH M R
S/O. RAMEGOWDA M.N.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT MACHANAHALLI VILLAGE
HELEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK 573 115
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. JAGADEESH H T., ADV.)
Digitally signed by AND:
PRAJWAL A
Location: HIGH COURT 1. ANNAPPA
OF KARNATAKA S/O. CHELUABHOVI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NARSHIPURA VILLAGE
RAJANASRIURU POST
HALEBEEDU HOBLI
BELUR TALUK 573 115
2. CHELUVABHOVI
S/O. CHINNABHOVI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NARSHIPURA VILLAGE
RAJANASHRIURU POST
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
MFA No. 6448 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2443 of 2017
HALEBEEDU HOBLI
BELUR TALUK 573 115
HASSAN DISTRICT
3. THE MANAGER
BHARATHI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD.
TEMPLE ROAD
KALIDASA CIRCLE
VV MOHALLA
NO. 2951:A D 29:1
1ST FLOOR, MYSORE 570 002
REP. BY THE MANAGER
BHARATHI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE CO LTD
TEMPLE INSURANCE ZONE
BJS BUILDING, BEHIND
BSNL BHAVAN, B M ROAD
HASSAN 573 201 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV. FOR R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2024,
NOTICE TO R1 & R2 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.03.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.848/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, M.A.C.T., BELUR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 2443/2017
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
BHARATI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD, TEMPLE ROAD
KALIDASA CIRCLE, V V MOHALLA
NO. 2951A D 29/1, 1ST FLOOR
MYSORE 570 002. NOW REP.
BY ITS MANAGER
M/S BHARATI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,
1ST FLOOR, FERNS ICON
SURVEY NO. 28, DODDANEKUNDI
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
MFA No. 6448 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2443 of 2017
BANGALORE 560 037
THE BRANCH MANAGER
BHARATHI AXA GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
TEMPLE INSURANCE ZONE
G.J.S. BUILDING
BEHIND BSNL BUILDING
B.M.ROAD, HASSAN ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADV.)
AND:
1. RAMEGOWDA M.N.
S/O. NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
2. POORNIMA
W/O. RAMEGOWDA M.N.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. LOKESH M R
S/O. RAMEGOWDA M.N.
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT MACHANAHALLI VILLAGE
HELEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK 573 201
4. ANNAPPA
S/O. CHELUABHOVI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NARSHIPURA VILLAGE
RAJANASRIURU POST
HALEBEEDU HOBLI
BELUR TALUK 573 201
5. CHELUVABHOVI
S/O. CHINNABHOVI
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT NARSHIPURA VILLAGE
RAJANASHRIURU POST
HALEBEEDU HOBLI
BELUR TALUK 573 201
HASSAN DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
MFA No. 6448 of 2017
C/W MFA No. 2443 of 2017
(BY SRI.H.T.JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 27.06.2024
NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH;
R5 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.03.2016
PASSED IN MVC NO.848/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, & MACT, BELUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF
Rs.10,87,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 9% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF
PETITION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In these two appeals, both the petitioners as well
as the Insurance Company have challenged the
judgment and award dated 01.03.2016 passed in
M.V.C.No.848/2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge
and MACT at Belur ('the Tribunal' for brevity).
2. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the
parties shall be referred to as per their status before
the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are, the son of
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3
by name Sathish, the deceased, met with an accident
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
on 14.02.2015 while riding his motor cycle bearing
No.KA-46/H-5135 hit by the Tractor/Trailor bearing
No.KA-46/T-4629 and KA-18/T-1192 at Halebidu
Tankbund and sustained injuries; he was admitted to
Janapriya Hospital, Hassan and he died on 16.02.2015
on account of injuries sustained in the accident. The
petitioners as the dependants have approached the
Tribunal seeking grant of compensation. The claim
was opposed by the Insurance Company of the
Tractor/Trailor. After taking the evidence and hearing
both sides, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment
awarded compensation of Rs.10,87,000/- with interest
@ 9% per annum. Seeking enhancement, the
petitioners have filed M.F.A.No.6448/2017 whereas
challenging the liability to pay compensation, the
Insurance Company has filed M.F.A.No.2443/2017.
4. Heard the arguments of Sri.H.T.Jagadeesh,
learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.Pradeep,
learned counsel for the Insurance Company.
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the accident is of the year 2015,
deceased was aged 21 years, earning Rs.30,000/- per
month, the Tribunal has taken income at only
Rs.6,000/- per month. Compensation assessed under
conventional heads is lower and sought for
enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the Tribunal has taken
the future prospects at 50% instead of 40% for an
agriculturist with no proof of income and the interest
awarded at 9% per annum is excess. The Tribunal has
committed an error in fastening the liability against the
Insurance Company as the driver of the Tractor did not
possess valid driving licence to drive the Trailor.
Hence, the liability has to be taken off from the
Insurance Company and the owner has to pay the
compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed by the learned counsel for both
parties and perused the records.
8. The material on record shows that there was
an accident on 14.02.2015 involving the motor cycle
and the Tractor in question in which the deceased
Satish has sustained injuries and died in the hospital
after 3 days of the accident. The petitioners have
spent some money towards treatment. The Police
records show that the driver of the Tractor has been
charge sheeted and he has faced the trial. The
evidence did not point out anything that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
Hence, the petitioners, who are the parents and
brother being the dependants are entitled to claim
compensation.
9. In a case of this nature, compensation has to
be determined by following the principles settled by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
Co.Ltd. -vs- Pranay Sethi and Others 1 and Sarla
Varma (Smt.) and Others -vs- Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another2.
10. The accident is of the year 2015. In the year
2015, one can make a reasonable case that a person
with no proof of income will earn not less than
Rs.9,000/- per month. In view of the principles laid
down in Pranay Sethi's case, 40% of future prospects
has to be considered for the age of 21 years.
Therefore, the loss of dependency has to be calculated
thus: Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,600/- (40%) = Rs.12,600/- -
Rs.6,300/- (50%) = Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 18 =
Rs.13,60,800/-. The deceased left behind his parents
and brother. Hence, towards parental consortium and
loss of love and affection to the brother Rs.40,000/-
each has to be assessed. Towards funeral expenses
and loss of estate, Rs.15,000/- each is assessed. In
view of judgment in Pranay Sethi's case, 10%
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
appreciation has to be given under the conventional
heads and it comes to Rs.15,000/-. The medical bills
shows that Rs.14,400/- has been spent. Rs.50,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. Hence,
medical expenses is considered at Rs.15,000/-.
Thereby the total compensation comes to
Rs.15,40,800/- as against Rs.10,87,000/- awarded by
the Tribunal. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled
for enhancement of Rs.4,53,800/-, which is the just
compensation in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
11. As regards rate of interest is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded 9% interest. Taking judicial
notice that in the year 2015, no Banks including the
private Banks would have offered interest @ 9% to the
amount kept in Fixed Deposit. The Division Bench of
this court in Ms.Joyeeta Bose and Ors. -vs-
Venkateshan.V. and Ors. in M.F.A.No.5896/2018 c/w
M.F.A.Nos.4444/2018 and 4659/2018 (MV) DD
24.08.2020 with reference to Section 149(1) of Motor
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 253 of Karnataka Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Section 34 of Civil Procedure
Code, at Para 52 has laid down principles regarding
award of interest, it reads thus:
"52.Thus, under Section 34 of CPC being
squarely applicable to the interest awarded
by the tribunal and Section 34 empowering
the tribunal to award pendente lite interest
and discretion being vested with the
Court/Tribunal to award interest from the
date of suit or petition is to the maximum
extent of 6% p.a. or in other words, not
exceeding 6% p.a., the contention raised by
the learned Advocates appearing for the
Insurance Company deserves to be accepted
and accordingly, it is accepted. . . . . . . . . ."
12. As seen from the catena of decisions, only in
the cases where special reasons are recorded, higher
rate of interest is awarded. Here in this case, the
Tribunal has not assigned any reason for awarding
higher rate of interest. The interest awarded by the
Tribunal at 9% per annum is not comparable to
prevailing Bank rate of interest. Since the Insurance
Company has challenged the same, the rate of interest
shall be not more than 6%.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
13. As regards liability is concerned, there is no
dispute that the driver of the Tractor was holding valid
driving licence to drive the Tractor. Trailor is not
motorable unless it is fixed to Tractor. There is no
evidence on record to show that non-holding of driving
licence for the Trailor was the cause for the accident
for fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.
Hence, Insurance Company cannot be allowed to urge
such contention to avoid its liability. Hence, the owner
and the Insurance Company have to pay compensation
jointly and severally. Both the appeals merit
consideration, in the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) Both appeals are partly allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal is modified;
(iii) The petitioners are entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.4,53,800/- with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29870
the total compensation from the date of
petition till its realization;
(iv) The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the entire compensation amount
with interest @ 6% within eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this judgment.
(v) Rest of the judgment and award of the
Tribunal is kept intact;
(vi) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal along with
records.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
KNM
