Karnataka High Court
Mahatab S/O Khajabhai Nadaf vs Mr.Wahid Aminsab Bagwan And Anr on 21 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8789
MFA No. 201812 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201812 OF 2019 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. MAHATAB S/O KHAJABHAI NADAF,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
2. SMT. HAJJUMA W/O MAHATAB NADAF,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
BOTH R/O PEERZADE GALLI, AKKALKOT.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANGANABASAVA B PATIL,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR.WAHID AMINSAB BAGWAN,
Digitally signed by AGE:MAJOR OCC: BUSINESS,
RENUKA
R/O BAGAWAN GALLI, AKKALKOT.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TQ:AKKALKOT, DIST: SOLAPUR.
KARNATAKA
2. THE MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
SHIDDESHWAR ROAD, VIJAYAPUR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.V. DESHMUKH ,ADVOCATE FOR R1:
SRI.J. AUGASTIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.01.2019
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE AND MACT NO.IV, VIJAYAPUR, AT VIJAYAPUR
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8789
MFA No. 201812 of 2019
IN MVC NO.2207/2014 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM
PETITION BY GRANTING THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR AND
ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
Captioned appeal is by claimants, who are aggrieved
by the quantum and dismissal of claim petition against
second respondent-Insurance company on the ground that
deceased was traveling as a paid passenger in a private
auto. The said judgment and award in MVC No.2207/2014
is under challenge.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
Claimants have filed a claim petition for having lost
one Sameena Nadaf in a road traffic accident dated
25.07.2014. Claimants are parents of the deceased lady,
who specifically averred in the claim petition that their
daughter was proceeding in offending auto and due to
negligent driving by driver of the offending auto, the auto
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8789
met with an accident. In the said accident, one Sameena
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on
03.08.2014. Parents filed a claim petition. Claimants and
second respondent-Insurance Company led in oral and
documentary evidence. Tribunal referring to Ex.R-1,
proceeded on an assumption that auto, being a private
car, deceased could not have traveled as a paid passenger
in a private vehicle and therefore, proceeded to answer
issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and held that the
Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify third parties.
3. While determining quantum, Tribunal assessed
income of the diseased at Rs.6,000/- and without adding
future prospects awarded a sum of Rs.6,48,000/- under
the head of loss of dependency. This appeal is on quantum
and also liability.
On Liability :
4. Upon careful examination of the records, this
Court has observed that the Tribunal has fundamentally
misinterpreted the terms and conditions of the insurance
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8789
policy issued by the second respondent, the Insurance
Company, as evidenced in Exhibit R-1. A meticulous
perusal of Exhibit R-1 reveals that the said policy is
a Comprehensive Policy. This Court has also noted that the
second respondent-Insurance Company had collected an
additional premium of Rs.150/-. Even if this additional
premium had not been collected, the fact that the policy in
question is a Comprehensive Policy inherently establishes
that the policy provides automatic coverage for the
occupants of the offending auto.
5. The Tribunal, in its findings, erroneously
absolved the second respondent-Insurance Company from
its liability under the policy. This approach is not only
flawed but also contrary to the terms of the insurance
contract. A Comprehensive Policy is designed to extend
coverage to all specified risks, including the liability arising
in respect of third parties or passengers within the vehicle.
By issuing such a policy, and further collecting an
additional sum of Rs.150/-, the second respondent-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8789
Insurance Company unequivocally bound itself to
indemnify any claims arising from a road traffic accident
involving the insured vehicle.
6. Given the above, it is evident that the findings
of the Tribunal on this matter are perverse and
unsustainable in law. The Insurance Company, having
issued a Comprehensive Policy and accepted an additional
premium, cannot evade its liability. Consequently, this
Court finds it imperative to set aside the Tribunal's
findings on liability. The second respondent-Insurance
Company is, therefore, held liable to indemnify the third
party for the claims arising from the road traffic accident
in question. Accordingly, the erroneous findings of the
Tribunal on this aspect are hereby set aside.
On Quantum:
7. This Court is of the view that in absence of
income proof, income assessed by Tribunal at Rs.6,000/-,
is marginally on the lower side. Having regard to the fact
that accident is of the year 2014, this Court is inclined to
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8789
place reliance on the income chart issued by Karnataka
State Legal Services Authority. Accordingly, income is
nationally assessed at Rs.7,500/- and by adding 40%
towards future prospect, income is nationally assessed at
Rs.10,500/-. Deceased was a bachelor, accordingly 50% is
deducted and income is taken at Rs.5,250/- and by
applying multiplier of 18 compensation payable under the
head of loss of dependency works out to Rs.11,34,000/-.
Under conventional heads, appellants are entitled for a
sum of Rs.1,10,000/- and an additional sum of
Rs.22,000/- is awarded by granting 10% escalation for
every three years, applying principles laid down on by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi and Others1.
Compensation re-assessed by this Court is as under:
Heads of Amount
Compensation
Loss of dependency Rs.11,34,000/-
Conventional heads Rs.1,10,000/-
AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5157
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8789
Escalation Rs.22,000/-
Total Rs.12,66,000 /-
8. For the reasons stated supra, this Court passes
following order:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed in part.
ii. Finding on liability is set aside.
Insurance company is liable to satisfy
award.
iii. Appellants are entitled for a
compensation Rs.12,66,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6%, from the date
of petition, till realization of entire
compensation.
iv. Second respondent-Insurance company
is jointly and severely liable to pay the
compensation.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
