Karnataka High Court
Meghu And Anr vs Revanasidda And Anr on 30 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
MFA No.201673 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201673 OF 2017 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MEGHU
W/O PEMU RATHOD,
AGE: 54 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
2. SHANUBAI
W/O MEGHU RATHOD,
AGE: 49 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
BOTH ARE R/O INCHAGERI,
Digitally signed by
TQ: & DIST : VIJAYAPURA.
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ ...APPELLANTS
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. REVANASIDDA
S/O POMU RATHOD,
AGE: 44 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O: INCHAGERI,
TQ: INDI,
DIST : VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
MFA No.201673 of 2017
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, SANGAMA BUILDING,
S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR
VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD ATED
12.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND M.A.C.T-V, VIJAYAPURA IN M.V.C.NO.1375/2013 AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ENHANCE THE
COMPENSATION FROM RS.8,25,000/- TO RS.50,00,000/- WITH
INTEREST @ 12% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL ACTUAL REALIATION BY PASTING THE LIABILITY ON
RESPONDENT NO.2 -INSURANCE COMPANY, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
RAJESH RAI K., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioners under Section
173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act')
challenging the judgment and award dated 12.04.2017
passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT-V,
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
Vijayapura, (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the
Tribunal') in MVC No.1375/2013.
2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Tribunal. Appellants are petitioners and the
respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal are that,
one Prakash S/o Meghu Rathod was the son of both the
petitioners and was aged about 23 years, working in Sugar
Factory and had monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. On
20.03.2013, he was working in Bagasse Yard in
Vijayanagar Sugar Factory situated at Mundaragi taluk. At
about 3.50 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the
Tractor bearing its Reg.No.KA-28/TA-2003 by its driver
caused accident and due to which said Prakash sustained
severe injuries and was shifted to PHC Mundaragi,
thereafter KIMS Hospital, Hubballi and he died during the
course of treatment. Thereafter the jurisdictional police
registered the FIR and after investigation filed the charge
sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
petitioners being the dependents on the income of the
deceased filed claim petition before the tribunal seeking
compensation.
4. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1
did not appear before the Tribunal and hence, he was
placed exparte.
5. Respondent No.2/Insurance company filed
written statement denying the averments made in the
claim petition and it is contended that the liability of the
insurance company is subject to terms and conditions of
the Insurance policy and respondent No.1 has violated the
said conditions. Therefore, the insurance company cannot
be held liable to pay any compensation.
6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of
the parties framed the issues and recorded the evidence.
In order to prove the case, the petitioners examined
petitioner No.1 as PW.1 and examined one witness as
P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P7.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
Respondent No.2 examined its officer as R.W.1 and got
marked document as Ex.R.1.
7. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and
after considering the material on record allowed the claim
petition in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.8,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization and fastened the liberty on the respondent
No.1-Owner of the offending vehicle and directed to
deposit the compensation.
8. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this
appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company.
10. It is the primary contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal committed
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
error in granting mistake without properly appreciating the
evidence and documentary evidence placed before it.
Apart from granting meager compensation, the Tribunal
also erred in fastening the liability on the respondent No.1
and dismissing the claim against the respondent No.2.
According to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.Ws.1
and 2 clearly establish that the accident was caused due to
negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and in spite of
that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against the
respondent No.2 i.e., Insurer of the said Tractor.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/Insurance company supports the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and
submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
just and proper and does not call for interference. He
further contend that on perusal of the evidence of P.W.2,
it is clear that the Tractor of respondent No.1 was used
not for any agricultural work or forestry work. As such,
he has violated the terms and conditions of policy. Hence,
respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim
against the respondent No.2. Hence, he prays to dismiss
the appeal.
12. Perused the records and considered the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The points that arise for our consideration are
that:
i) Whether the Tribunal justified in
fastening liability on the owner of the
Tractor i.e., respondent No.1?
ii) Whether the Tribunal justified in
awarding just and proper
compensation to the claimants?
14. Point No.1: As could be seen from the
evidence of R.W.1, who is the officer of the Insurance
company, categorically stated that at the time of accident,
the Tractor was used for commercial or hire or reward
purpose and therefore it amounts to violation of terms and
conditions of the insurance policy. Further, P.W.2 also
deposed before the Tribunal that he does not know the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
name and other particulars of the driver of the said Tractor
and the deceased Prakash was not working in his factory,
but he was the driver of the Tractor. He further deposed
that only hired or paid vehicles are allowed to enter the
factory premises other than the vehicles allowed with
sugarcane. Hence, on careful perusal of the evidence of
P.W.2, it can be concluded that the Tractor was not used
for agricultural or forestry work. Hence, in our considered
view the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability to
respondent No.1 and rightly dismissed the claim petition
against the respondent No.2. Accordingly, we answer the
point No.1 in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.2: It is the case of the petitioners
that the deceased Prakash was working in a Sugar Factory
and earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. In order to
substantiate the claim of the petitioners, the petitioners
have not produced any records to establish that the
deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. In the absence of
proof of such monthly income, the Tribunal has rightly
assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.7,000/- p.m.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
as per the Chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority. According to the Chart, as the
accident occurred is of the year 2013. But the Tribunal
has failed to add 40% of the income of the deceased, in
view of the judgment of the Apex Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the income of the deceased
has to be added towards future prospects. The deceased
was aged about 23 years as on the date of the accident,
the multiplier of 18 is applicable the the age group of 23
as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation
reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
16. Since the deceased was bachelor at the time of
accident, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards
his personal expenses. Therefore, computing the above
factors, the petitioners are entitled to a sum of
Rs.10,58,400/- [Rs.7,000 + 40%(Rs.2,800/-) =Rs.9,800/-
less 50% (Rs4,900/-) = Rs.4,900x12x18] as
compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
17. Further, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General
Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram & Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130,
each petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/-
towards loss of consortium. The petitioners are the
parents of the deceased, hence the compensation towards
loss of consortium would be Rs.80,000/- (40,000 x 2). In
addition, the petitioners are entitled a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- under the head
of loss of estate.
18. Thus, in all, the petitioners are entitled to a
sum of Rs.11,68,400/- as against Rs.8,25,000/- awarded
by the Tribunal. In view of the above discussions, point
No.2 is answered accordingly and we, proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3462-DB
ii. The impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is modified.
iii. The petitioners are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.11,68,400/- as
against Rs.8,25,000/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
iv. Respondent No.1/Owner of the offending
vehicle is directed to deposit the
compensation amount before the Tribunal
within a period of eight weeks from date
of the receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
v. Disbursement, deposit and release of
enhanced compensation shall be as per
the order of the Tribunal.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
Ct:VK
