Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chandra Reddy. R vs Sri. V. Veluswamy on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
MFA No. 2285 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2285 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHANDRA REDDY. R,
S/O. LATE RAMANASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
2. AMARAVATHI,
W/O. R. CHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
THE PETITIONERS RESIDING AT
BODANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
ANUGONDANAHALLI POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 114.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally
(BY SRI. A.K. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
signed by
SUVARNA T AND:
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. SRI. V. VELUSWAMY,
KARNATAKA (MAJORE IN AGE),
S/O VENKATACHALAM,
R/AT NO.57, EAST STREET,
THATNA IYENGARPET,
MUSARI TALUK, TRICHY DISTRICT,
TAMIL NADU - 620 007.
2. THE LEGAL MANAGER,
M/S. SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
MFA No. 2285 of 2017
NO.305, 3RD FLOOR,
S.S. CORNER BUILDING,
OPP: BOWRING & LADY CURZON HOSPITAL,
SHIVAJINAGARA, BANGALORE - 02.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.09.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NO.124/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL.DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the Award dated 24.09.2016 passed in
M.V.C.No.124/2013 by the VIII Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore by the Court of
the Senior Civil Judge & XIV Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal at Thipur, the claimant is before this Court
seeking enhancement of the compensation and also
questioning the liability fixed on the owner of the vehicle.
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
2. The case of the claimants is that on 07.05.2013 at
about 9.00 pm, the deceased was proceeding as a pillion
rider on a motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-03-EJ-1074. At
that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-72-
AC-8294 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the motor cycle and the deceased sustained
severe head injuries and other injuries on all over his
body. He was shifted to the hospital and in the hospital he
succumbed to the injuries on 08.05.2013. According to the
claimants the deceased was studying in first year Diploma
in Mechanical Engineering and they spent huge amount
towards transportation, funeral and other expenses. The
Court below basing on the evidence i.e., Ex.P4 and Ex.P6
to P8, observed that the driver of the offending vehicle has
a valid driving license to drive the LMV-non transport and
motor cycle with gear and he is driving a heavy goods
vehicle. As such, the Court below has held that the owner
of the vehicle is liable to pay a compensation and
exonerated the Insurance Company. When it comes to
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
the compensation, the Court below has granted
compensation as per the table given below:
Heads Compensation
Awarded
Pecuniary Damages : Rs. 1,65,000/-
Non-pecuniary Damages : Rs. 50,000/-
Transportation of dead body : Rs. 5,000/-
Medical Expenses : Rs. 1,88,700/-
Loss of love and affection : Rs. 10,000/-
Loss of estate 10,000/-
: Rs.
Funeral and other expenses 15,000/-
: Rs.
Total 4,43,700/-
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Court below went wrong in exonerating the insurance
Company from the liability. It is submitted that whether it
is a case of no driving license or valid driving license, the
deceased being a third party, still the insurance Company
is liable to pay compensation and recover the same from
the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted that when
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
it comes to the compensation, in this case the deceased
was 17 years old at the time of his death and granting
compensation of an amount of Rs.4,43,700/- is contrary to
the settled law and to the evidence available on record.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company submits that the Court below had
rightly granted the compensation and exonerated the
Insurance Company from the liability. It is submitted that
no grounds are made out seeking interference with the
well considered order passed by the Court below.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. First, coming
to the issue of liability, in this case the Court below had
absolved the Insurance Company from the liability only on
the ground that the driver of the vehicle is having a
driving license to drive light motor vehicle and he is
driving a heavy transport vehicle. Even in such a case, as
per the settled law, the principles of pay and recover will
apply. In such cases the Insurance Company is liable to
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
pay the compensation and can recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle. In view of the same, this Court is of
the view that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the
compensation and recover the same from the owner of the
vehicle. Then, coming to the compensation, here in this
case, the age of the deceased is 17 years and he is
admitted into the diploma course in mechanical
engineering. Though there is no evidence with regard to
the income of the deceased, considering the future
prospectus and the notional income chart prepared by the
Karnataka Legal Services Authority, as this accident is of
the year 2013, this Court is considering the income at
Rs.8,000/- per month as notional income. As the deceased
was 17 years old, 40% future prospectus would come to
Rs.3,200/- that is Rs.11,200/-(Rs.8,000+Rs.3,200). The
deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the income has to be
deducted towards his personal expenses, then, his
contribution to the family is an amount of Rs.5,600/-. The
multiplier applicable is '18', under the head of loss of
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
dependency, they are entitled for an amount of
Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.5,600x12x18).
6. When it comes to consortium, the parents are
the claimants, they are entitled for consortium at
Rs.48,000x2=Rs.96,000/-. Towards, funeral expenses an
amount of Rs.36,000/- is granted. The Court below had
awarded an amount of Rs.1,88,700/- towards medical
expenses and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with
the same.
7. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of V.MEKALA vs. M.
MALATHI AND ANOTHER1, the claimant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.
Altogether, the claimant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.15,40,300/-/-.
(2014) 11 SCC 178
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
8. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the
compensation under the following heads:
Sl. Compensation Head Amount Amount awarded
Awarded by by this Court (`)
No the Tribunal
(`)
1 Pecuniary Damages 1,65,000/- -
2 Non-pecuniary 50,000/- -
Damages
3 Transportation of 5,000/- -
dead body
4 Medical Expenses 1,88,700/- 1,88,700/-
5 Loss of love and 10,000/- -
affection
6 Loss of estate 10,000/- -
7 Loss of future income - 12,09,600/-
8 Loss of consortium - 96,000/-
9 Funeral expenses - 36,000/-
10 Legal expenses - 10,000/-
Total 4,43,700/- 15,40,300 /-
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, by
enhancing the compensation from an amount of
Rs.4,43,700/- to an amount of Rs.15,40,300/-.
i. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
ii. The respondent - insurance Company is liable
to pay the compensation within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
the judgment and recover the same from the
owner of the vehicle. On such deposit, the
claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire
amount without furnishing any security.
iii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:9362
iv. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
JS
CT: BHK
